M. Alexander Otto

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection is the current standard of care in breast cancer when metastases are found in sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

However, what to do when isolated tumor cells instead of outright metastases are found in sentinel nodes is an open question. Some surgeons opt for a full axillary dissection while others do not, and there is no standard of care, explained Giacomo Montagna, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

The study led and presented by Dr. Montagna at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium brings some much-needed clarity to the issue.

The researchers found no difference in 5-year axillary or invasive recurrence rates whether women had axillary dissections or not. The findings argue strongly against “routine axillary lymph node dissection” — with its considerable morbidities — “in patients with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Montagna said.

Study discussant Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed.

“It appears that the presence of isolated tumor cells in the sentinel nodes does not negatively impact oncologic outcomes. These additional data allow us to debunk some of the surgical dogma we grew up with, specifically that lymph node dissection is required for either survival or local control,” Dr. Mittendorf said.

However, there was concern among audience members that the information gleaned from a full dissection might still be needed to guide follow-on adjuvant therapy decisions.

Dr. Mittendorf didn’t think so. Although additional positive lymph nodes were found in almost a third of women who had axillary dissections in the review, the majority of involved nodes simply had more isolated tumor cells; macrometastases were found in just 5% of cases.

So, for most patients, additional information from axillary dissections is “unlikely needed to inform adjuvant therapy, and in fact,” based on the 5% figure, “we are thinking we would have to do well over a hundred lymph node dissections in such patients to inform treatment recommendations for fewer than five. This comes at the cost of fair morbidity,” she said.

Study details

The retrospective study, dubbed OPBC05/EUBREAST-14R/ICARO, included 583 women with cT1-4 N0-3 breast cancer treated at 62 centers in 18 countries. The majority of subjects were from the United States and Europe.

Every patient was found to have isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in their sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which generally included anthracycline and taxane-based regimens. The majority of patients did not have a pathologic complete response to NAC.

Overall, 182 patients (31%) had a subsequent axillary lymph node dissection; the rest did not.

Dissections were more common in the presence of lymphovascular invasion and N2/N3 disease as well as when fewer lymph nodes were removed and when ITCs were found during surgery on frozen section, which was the case in a quarter of patients.

Additional positive nodes were found in 30% of patients in the dissection group and consisted of more nodes with ITCs in 18%, micrometastases in 7%, and macrometastases in 5%. Receptor status and nodal status at presentation did not have an impact on the likelihood of finding macrometastases.

The main finding of the study was that there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence outcomes between the two groups.

The 5-year rate of isolated axillary recurrence was 1.7% with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus 1.1% without it. The 5-year rate of any invasive recurrence was 16% in the ALND arm and 19% in the no-dissection group.

The median age in the study was 48 years. The majority of patients (57%) had clinical T2 tumors. Most were HR positive and either HER2 negative (41%) or HER2 positive (28%).

Regional nodal radiation was more common in the ALND group, 82% versus 75%. The dissection arm had a mean of 2.8 sentinel lymph nodes removed versus 3.5 in the no-dissection group.

“The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with residual ITCs after NAC is lower than in patients with residual micro- and macrometastases. In the majority of cases, they contain ITCs. Nodal recurrence after omission of ALND is rare in this population,” the investigators concluded in their abstract.

The work was funded by EUBREAST. Dr. Montagna doesn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Mittendorf has several industry ties, including being an advisor for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Moderna and a speaker for Merck.

SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection is the current standard of care in breast cancer when metastases are found in sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

However, what to do when isolated tumor cells instead of outright metastases are found in sentinel nodes is an open question. Some surgeons opt for a full axillary dissection while others do not, and there is no standard of care, explained Giacomo Montagna, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

The study led and presented by Dr. Montagna at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium brings some much-needed clarity to the issue.

The researchers found no difference in 5-year axillary or invasive recurrence rates whether women had axillary dissections or not. The findings argue strongly against “routine axillary lymph node dissection” — with its considerable morbidities — “in patients with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Montagna said.

Study discussant Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed.

“It appears that the presence of isolated tumor cells in the sentinel nodes does not negatively impact oncologic outcomes. These additional data allow us to debunk some of the surgical dogma we grew up with, specifically that lymph node dissection is required for either survival or local control,” Dr. Mittendorf said.

However, there was concern among audience members that the information gleaned from a full dissection might still be needed to guide follow-on adjuvant therapy decisions.

Dr. Mittendorf didn’t think so. Although additional positive lymph nodes were found in almost a third of women who had axillary dissections in the review, the majority of involved nodes simply had more isolated tumor cells; macrometastases were found in just 5% of cases.

So, for most patients, additional information from axillary dissections is “unlikely needed to inform adjuvant therapy, and in fact,” based on the 5% figure, “we are thinking we would have to do well over a hundred lymph node dissections in such patients to inform treatment recommendations for fewer than five. This comes at the cost of fair morbidity,” she said.

Study details

The retrospective study, dubbed OPBC05/EUBREAST-14R/ICARO, included 583 women with cT1-4 N0-3 breast cancer treated at 62 centers in 18 countries. The majority of subjects were from the United States and Europe.

Every patient was found to have isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in their sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which generally included anthracycline and taxane-based regimens. The majority of patients did not have a pathologic complete response to NAC.

Overall, 182 patients (31%) had a subsequent axillary lymph node dissection; the rest did not.

Dissections were more common in the presence of lymphovascular invasion and N2/N3 disease as well as when fewer lymph nodes were removed and when ITCs were found during surgery on frozen section, which was the case in a quarter of patients.

Additional positive nodes were found in 30% of patients in the dissection group and consisted of more nodes with ITCs in 18%, micrometastases in 7%, and macrometastases in 5%. Receptor status and nodal status at presentation did not have an impact on the likelihood of finding macrometastases.

The main finding of the study was that there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence outcomes between the two groups.

The 5-year rate of isolated axillary recurrence was 1.7% with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus 1.1% without it. The 5-year rate of any invasive recurrence was 16% in the ALND arm and 19% in the no-dissection group.

The median age in the study was 48 years. The majority of patients (57%) had clinical T2 tumors. Most were HR positive and either HER2 negative (41%) or HER2 positive (28%).

Regional nodal radiation was more common in the ALND group, 82% versus 75%. The dissection arm had a mean of 2.8 sentinel lymph nodes removed versus 3.5 in the no-dissection group.

“The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with residual ITCs after NAC is lower than in patients with residual micro- and macrometastases. In the majority of cases, they contain ITCs. Nodal recurrence after omission of ALND is rare in this population,” the investigators concluded in their abstract.

The work was funded by EUBREAST. Dr. Montagna doesn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Mittendorf has several industry ties, including being an advisor for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Moderna and a speaker for Merck.

SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection is the current standard of care in breast cancer when metastases are found in sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

However, what to do when isolated tumor cells instead of outright metastases are found in sentinel nodes is an open question. Some surgeons opt for a full axillary dissection while others do not, and there is no standard of care, explained Giacomo Montagna, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

The study led and presented by Dr. Montagna at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium brings some much-needed clarity to the issue.

The researchers found no difference in 5-year axillary or invasive recurrence rates whether women had axillary dissections or not. The findings argue strongly against “routine axillary lymph node dissection” — with its considerable morbidities — “in patients with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Montagna said.

Study discussant Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed.

“It appears that the presence of isolated tumor cells in the sentinel nodes does not negatively impact oncologic outcomes. These additional data allow us to debunk some of the surgical dogma we grew up with, specifically that lymph node dissection is required for either survival or local control,” Dr. Mittendorf said.

However, there was concern among audience members that the information gleaned from a full dissection might still be needed to guide follow-on adjuvant therapy decisions.

Dr. Mittendorf didn’t think so. Although additional positive lymph nodes were found in almost a third of women who had axillary dissections in the review, the majority of involved nodes simply had more isolated tumor cells; macrometastases were found in just 5% of cases.

So, for most patients, additional information from axillary dissections is “unlikely needed to inform adjuvant therapy, and in fact,” based on the 5% figure, “we are thinking we would have to do well over a hundred lymph node dissections in such patients to inform treatment recommendations for fewer than five. This comes at the cost of fair morbidity,” she said.

Study details

The retrospective study, dubbed OPBC05/EUBREAST-14R/ICARO, included 583 women with cT1-4 N0-3 breast cancer treated at 62 centers in 18 countries. The majority of subjects were from the United States and Europe.

Every patient was found to have isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in their sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which generally included anthracycline and taxane-based regimens. The majority of patients did not have a pathologic complete response to NAC.

Overall, 182 patients (31%) had a subsequent axillary lymph node dissection; the rest did not.

Dissections were more common in the presence of lymphovascular invasion and N2/N3 disease as well as when fewer lymph nodes were removed and when ITCs were found during surgery on frozen section, which was the case in a quarter of patients.

Additional positive nodes were found in 30% of patients in the dissection group and consisted of more nodes with ITCs in 18%, micrometastases in 7%, and macrometastases in 5%. Receptor status and nodal status at presentation did not have an impact on the likelihood of finding macrometastases.

The main finding of the study was that there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence outcomes between the two groups.

The 5-year rate of isolated axillary recurrence was 1.7% with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus 1.1% without it. The 5-year rate of any invasive recurrence was 16% in the ALND arm and 19% in the no-dissection group.

The median age in the study was 48 years. The majority of patients (57%) had clinical T2 tumors. Most were HR positive and either HER2 negative (41%) or HER2 positive (28%).

Regional nodal radiation was more common in the ALND group, 82% versus 75%. The dissection arm had a mean of 2.8 sentinel lymph nodes removed versus 3.5 in the no-dissection group.

“The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with residual ITCs after NAC is lower than in patients with residual micro- and macrometastases. In the majority of cases, they contain ITCs. Nodal recurrence after omission of ALND is rare in this population,” the investigators concluded in their abstract.

The work was funded by EUBREAST. Dr. Montagna doesn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Mittendorf has several industry ties, including being an advisor for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Moderna and a speaker for Merck.

SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection may be unnecessary if breast cancer patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes plan to have adjuvant nodal radiation, according to a major Scandinavian trial presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“It means that you don’t need to dissect the axilla if you” are going to “radiate the axilla.” “For the U.S., that’s the conclusion because there are still centers that do both, and that’s out,” lead investigator Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

The study added to a persistent theme at this year’s meeting, protecting breast cancer patients from doing too much and causing unnecessary harm. Some even wondered if 5 years of endocrine therapy is necessary.

Dr. Boniface shared her thoughts after presenting the Scandinavian trial, SENOMAC, which she led.

SENOMAC randomized 1,204 patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes to axillary dissection; 1,335 with the same finding were randomized to no dissection.

Subjects had clinically T1-3, N0 primary breast cancer. About 89% in both arms went on to adjuvant radiation, including nodal radiation, and almost all also went on to systemic therapy, which included endocrine therapy in over 90%. Only about 2% of subjects had neoadjuvant therapy.

At a median follow-up of nearly 4 years, recurrence-free survival was virtually identical in both groups, with 8% of patients in the dissection arm and 7.1% in the no-dissection group having recurrences. Estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was just shy of 90% in both groups. Skipping dissection was strongly non-inferior to having one (P < .001).

SENOMAC “clearly shows that you don’t need to dissect the axilla if you have one to two positive sentinel lymph nodes” so long as patients have adjuvant nodal radiation. Recurrence-free survival “curves practically overlap, and we cannot see any difference between the two groups,” Dr. Boniface said.

Meanwhile, the dissection group fared worse on patient reported outcomes. Overall survival outcomes, the primary endpoint of the trial, are expected within 2 years.

The goal of the trial, the largest to date to look into the issue, was to fill gaps in the literature. Similar outcomes were reported around a decade ago in patients with low sentinel lymph node burdens, but the extensive exclusion criteria raised questions about general applicability.

In contrast, SENOMAC was widely inclusive. Over a third of patients had mastectomies, over a third had sentinel lymph node extracapsular extension, almost 6% had T3 disease, almost 20% had lobular carcinoma, 40% were 65 years or older, and tumors were as large as 15.5 cm.

The findings held regardless of those and other factors on subgroup analyses, including estrogen receptor and HER2 status and the number of additional positive nodes retrieved in the dissection group.

Andrea V. Barrio, MD, the study discussant and a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agreed with the message from SENOMAC.

“Based on this, ALND [axillary lymph node dissection] should not be considered standard in patients with clinical T1-3, N0 breast cancer with one to two positive sentinel nodes, with or without microscopic extracapsular extension, undergoing lumpectomy or mastectomy,” provided nodal adjuvant radiotherapy is indicated, she said.

Although adjuvant nodal radiation for patients with one to three positive sentinel nodes is standard of care in Denmark and Sweden, where most of the patients in SENOMAC were located, practices vary widely in the United States. If adjuvant radiation isn’t used, “then ALND [is still] indicated,” Dr. Barrio said, but in either case, “only one is needed.”

In keeping with the de-escalation theme at the 2023 symposium, both Dr. Boniface and Dr. Barrio noted that trials are now underway to find patients who can avoid any axillary treatment at all if they have just one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes.

Preoperative axillary ultrasound was mandatory in SENOMAC and patients with non-palpable suspicious axillary lymph nodes were enrolled.

Thirty-six were positive on fine needle aspiration and randomized into the study, but when asked, Dr. Boniface didn’t have the data immediately at hand on how they fared.

The work was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Nordic Cancer Union, and others. Dr. Boniface and Dr. Barrio didn’t have any disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection may be unnecessary if breast cancer patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes plan to have adjuvant nodal radiation, according to a major Scandinavian trial presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“It means that you don’t need to dissect the axilla if you” are going to “radiate the axilla.” “For the U.S., that’s the conclusion because there are still centers that do both, and that’s out,” lead investigator Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

The study added to a persistent theme at this year’s meeting, protecting breast cancer patients from doing too much and causing unnecessary harm. Some even wondered if 5 years of endocrine therapy is necessary.

Dr. Boniface shared her thoughts after presenting the Scandinavian trial, SENOMAC, which she led.

SENOMAC randomized 1,204 patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes to axillary dissection; 1,335 with the same finding were randomized to no dissection.

Subjects had clinically T1-3, N0 primary breast cancer. About 89% in both arms went on to adjuvant radiation, including nodal radiation, and almost all also went on to systemic therapy, which included endocrine therapy in over 90%. Only about 2% of subjects had neoadjuvant therapy.

At a median follow-up of nearly 4 years, recurrence-free survival was virtually identical in both groups, with 8% of patients in the dissection arm and 7.1% in the no-dissection group having recurrences. Estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was just shy of 90% in both groups. Skipping dissection was strongly non-inferior to having one (P < .001).

SENOMAC “clearly shows that you don’t need to dissect the axilla if you have one to two positive sentinel lymph nodes” so long as patients have adjuvant nodal radiation. Recurrence-free survival “curves practically overlap, and we cannot see any difference between the two groups,” Dr. Boniface said.

Meanwhile, the dissection group fared worse on patient reported outcomes. Overall survival outcomes, the primary endpoint of the trial, are expected within 2 years.

The goal of the trial, the largest to date to look into the issue, was to fill gaps in the literature. Similar outcomes were reported around a decade ago in patients with low sentinel lymph node burdens, but the extensive exclusion criteria raised questions about general applicability.

In contrast, SENOMAC was widely inclusive. Over a third of patients had mastectomies, over a third had sentinel lymph node extracapsular extension, almost 6% had T3 disease, almost 20% had lobular carcinoma, 40% were 65 years or older, and tumors were as large as 15.5 cm.

The findings held regardless of those and other factors on subgroup analyses, including estrogen receptor and HER2 status and the number of additional positive nodes retrieved in the dissection group.

Andrea V. Barrio, MD, the study discussant and a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agreed with the message from SENOMAC.

“Based on this, ALND [axillary lymph node dissection] should not be considered standard in patients with clinical T1-3, N0 breast cancer with one to two positive sentinel nodes, with or without microscopic extracapsular extension, undergoing lumpectomy or mastectomy,” provided nodal adjuvant radiotherapy is indicated, she said.

Although adjuvant nodal radiation for patients with one to three positive sentinel nodes is standard of care in Denmark and Sweden, where most of the patients in SENOMAC were located, practices vary widely in the United States. If adjuvant radiation isn’t used, “then ALND [is still] indicated,” Dr. Barrio said, but in either case, “only one is needed.”

In keeping with the de-escalation theme at the 2023 symposium, both Dr. Boniface and Dr. Barrio noted that trials are now underway to find patients who can avoid any axillary treatment at all if they have just one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes.

Preoperative axillary ultrasound was mandatory in SENOMAC and patients with non-palpable suspicious axillary lymph nodes were enrolled.

Thirty-six were positive on fine needle aspiration and randomized into the study, but when asked, Dr. Boniface didn’t have the data immediately at hand on how they fared.

The work was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Nordic Cancer Union, and others. Dr. Boniface and Dr. Barrio didn’t have any disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection may be unnecessary if breast cancer patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes plan to have adjuvant nodal radiation, according to a major Scandinavian trial presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“It means that you don’t need to dissect the axilla if you” are going to “radiate the axilla.” “For the U.S., that’s the conclusion because there are still centers that do both, and that’s out,” lead investigator Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

The study added to a persistent theme at this year’s meeting, protecting breast cancer patients from doing too much and causing unnecessary harm. Some even wondered if 5 years of endocrine therapy is necessary.

Dr. Boniface shared her thoughts after presenting the Scandinavian trial, SENOMAC, which she led.

SENOMAC randomized 1,204 patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes to axillary dissection; 1,335 with the same finding were randomized to no dissection.

Subjects had clinically T1-3, N0 primary breast cancer. About 89% in both arms went on to adjuvant radiation, including nodal radiation, and almost all also went on to systemic therapy, which included endocrine therapy in over 90%. Only about 2% of subjects had neoadjuvant therapy.

At a median follow-up of nearly 4 years, recurrence-free survival was virtually identical in both groups, with 8% of patients in the dissection arm and 7.1% in the no-dissection group having recurrences. Estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was just shy of 90% in both groups. Skipping dissection was strongly non-inferior to having one (P < .001).

SENOMAC “clearly shows that you don’t need to dissect the axilla if you have one to two positive sentinel lymph nodes” so long as patients have adjuvant nodal radiation. Recurrence-free survival “curves practically overlap, and we cannot see any difference between the two groups,” Dr. Boniface said.

Meanwhile, the dissection group fared worse on patient reported outcomes. Overall survival outcomes, the primary endpoint of the trial, are expected within 2 years.

The goal of the trial, the largest to date to look into the issue, was to fill gaps in the literature. Similar outcomes were reported around a decade ago in patients with low sentinel lymph node burdens, but the extensive exclusion criteria raised questions about general applicability.

In contrast, SENOMAC was widely inclusive. Over a third of patients had mastectomies, over a third had sentinel lymph node extracapsular extension, almost 6% had T3 disease, almost 20% had lobular carcinoma, 40% were 65 years or older, and tumors were as large as 15.5 cm.

The findings held regardless of those and other factors on subgroup analyses, including estrogen receptor and HER2 status and the number of additional positive nodes retrieved in the dissection group.

Andrea V. Barrio, MD, the study discussant and a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agreed with the message from SENOMAC.

“Based on this, ALND [axillary lymph node dissection] should not be considered standard in patients with clinical T1-3, N0 breast cancer with one to two positive sentinel nodes, with or without microscopic extracapsular extension, undergoing lumpectomy or mastectomy,” provided nodal adjuvant radiotherapy is indicated, she said.

Although adjuvant nodal radiation for patients with one to three positive sentinel nodes is standard of care in Denmark and Sweden, where most of the patients in SENOMAC were located, practices vary widely in the United States. If adjuvant radiation isn’t used, “then ALND [is still] indicated,” Dr. Barrio said, but in either case, “only one is needed.”

In keeping with the de-escalation theme at the 2023 symposium, both Dr. Boniface and Dr. Barrio noted that trials are now underway to find patients who can avoid any axillary treatment at all if they have just one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes.

Preoperative axillary ultrasound was mandatory in SENOMAC and patients with non-palpable suspicious axillary lymph nodes were enrolled.

Thirty-six were positive on fine needle aspiration and randomized into the study, but when asked, Dr. Boniface didn’t have the data immediately at hand on how they fared.

The work was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Nordic Cancer Union, and others. Dr. Boniface and Dr. Barrio didn’t have any disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have likely solved the key problem with using olanzapine to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients.

Although it’s highly effective in combination with standard antiemetic therapy, olanzapine at the standard dose of 10 mg makes people too drowsy. “This has prevented its widespread use in clinical practice,” medical oncologist Jyoti Bajpai, DM, of Tata Memorial Cancer Centre, Mumbai, India, explained at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

She and her colleagues had a simple idea: Reduce the dose to 2.5 mg instead of 10 mg to prevent the problem. In a randomized trial with 267 patients that Dr. Bajpai presented at the meeting, they found that the lower dose was just as effective for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and it greatly reduced daytime somnolence.

“This merits consideration as an antiemetic regimen of choice for highly emetogenic chemotherapy.” The findings are “practice changing,” Dr. Bajpai, the lead investigator, said.

Laura Huppert, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wasn’t surprised by the finding.

She said she and her colleagues at UCSF use a lot of olanzapine for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Like the team in India, they have found that 2.5 mg is effective and causes far less sleepiness. Some patients require 5 mg, but the full 10-mg dose is rarely needed.

Although the approach is familiar at UCSF, Dr. Huppert said she doesn’t think a lot of oncologists outside of academic centers know that olanzapine is “really helpful” and that “you don’t need a high dose.” It’s “a very good clinical pearl” and “definitely a new message for some,” she said in an interview.

Over 90% of the subjects in the study were women with breast cancer. Other cancers included sarcoma, germ cell tumors, and head and neck cancer. Subjects were scheduled for their first chemotherapy session with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and high-dose cisplatin.

The trial randomized 135 patients to 10 mg of olanzapine and 132 to 2.5mg for 5 days, starting the day of their session. They were also on standard triple-antiemetic therapy (selective serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and single-dose dexamethasone).

There were no significant differences between the two arms regarding nausea and vomiting, which patients tracked in daily journals using symptom severity and visual analog scales.

For instance, 44.7% in the 2.5-mg arm and 43.7% in the 10-mg arm reported no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and no or only mild nausea (P = .87). Results were similar in the first 24 hours as well as on subsequent days.

There was also no difference in the proportion of patients who did have an emetic episode or needed rescue medication: 49.2% in the 2.5-mg arm versus 48.9% with 10 mg (P = .954).

Where the two groups split was on the incidence of daytime somnolence, which was reported by 65.2% of patients in the low-dose arm but 89.6% in the standard-dose group (P < .001). During the first 24 hours, 4.5% of low-dose patients reported severe somnolence versus 40% with 10-mg dosing (P < .001).

The overall incidence declined over the remaining study days, but the differences between the two groups were comparable. On day 5, for instance, 0.8% of low-dose patients but 8.1% of standard-dose patients reported severe somnolence (P = .004).

Low-dose patients also reported less appetite suppression.

The work was supported by the Progressive Ladies Welfare Association. Dr. Bajpai didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Huppert is an adviser for AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have likely solved the key problem with using olanzapine to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients.

Although it’s highly effective in combination with standard antiemetic therapy, olanzapine at the standard dose of 10 mg makes people too drowsy. “This has prevented its widespread use in clinical practice,” medical oncologist Jyoti Bajpai, DM, of Tata Memorial Cancer Centre, Mumbai, India, explained at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

She and her colleagues had a simple idea: Reduce the dose to 2.5 mg instead of 10 mg to prevent the problem. In a randomized trial with 267 patients that Dr. Bajpai presented at the meeting, they found that the lower dose was just as effective for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and it greatly reduced daytime somnolence.

“This merits consideration as an antiemetic regimen of choice for highly emetogenic chemotherapy.” The findings are “practice changing,” Dr. Bajpai, the lead investigator, said.

Laura Huppert, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wasn’t surprised by the finding.

She said she and her colleagues at UCSF use a lot of olanzapine for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Like the team in India, they have found that 2.5 mg is effective and causes far less sleepiness. Some patients require 5 mg, but the full 10-mg dose is rarely needed.

Although the approach is familiar at UCSF, Dr. Huppert said she doesn’t think a lot of oncologists outside of academic centers know that olanzapine is “really helpful” and that “you don’t need a high dose.” It’s “a very good clinical pearl” and “definitely a new message for some,” she said in an interview.

Over 90% of the subjects in the study were women with breast cancer. Other cancers included sarcoma, germ cell tumors, and head and neck cancer. Subjects were scheduled for their first chemotherapy session with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and high-dose cisplatin.

The trial randomized 135 patients to 10 mg of olanzapine and 132 to 2.5mg for 5 days, starting the day of their session. They were also on standard triple-antiemetic therapy (selective serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and single-dose dexamethasone).

There were no significant differences between the two arms regarding nausea and vomiting, which patients tracked in daily journals using symptom severity and visual analog scales.

For instance, 44.7% in the 2.5-mg arm and 43.7% in the 10-mg arm reported no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and no or only mild nausea (P = .87). Results were similar in the first 24 hours as well as on subsequent days.

There was also no difference in the proportion of patients who did have an emetic episode or needed rescue medication: 49.2% in the 2.5-mg arm versus 48.9% with 10 mg (P = .954).

Where the two groups split was on the incidence of daytime somnolence, which was reported by 65.2% of patients in the low-dose arm but 89.6% in the standard-dose group (P < .001). During the first 24 hours, 4.5% of low-dose patients reported severe somnolence versus 40% with 10-mg dosing (P < .001).

The overall incidence declined over the remaining study days, but the differences between the two groups were comparable. On day 5, for instance, 0.8% of low-dose patients but 8.1% of standard-dose patients reported severe somnolence (P = .004).

Low-dose patients also reported less appetite suppression.

The work was supported by the Progressive Ladies Welfare Association. Dr. Bajpai didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Huppert is an adviser for AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have likely solved the key problem with using olanzapine to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients.

Although it’s highly effective in combination with standard antiemetic therapy, olanzapine at the standard dose of 10 mg makes people too drowsy. “This has prevented its widespread use in clinical practice,” medical oncologist Jyoti Bajpai, DM, of Tata Memorial Cancer Centre, Mumbai, India, explained at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

She and her colleagues had a simple idea: Reduce the dose to 2.5 mg instead of 10 mg to prevent the problem. In a randomized trial with 267 patients that Dr. Bajpai presented at the meeting, they found that the lower dose was just as effective for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and it greatly reduced daytime somnolence.

“This merits consideration as an antiemetic regimen of choice for highly emetogenic chemotherapy.” The findings are “practice changing,” Dr. Bajpai, the lead investigator, said.

Laura Huppert, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wasn’t surprised by the finding.

She said she and her colleagues at UCSF use a lot of olanzapine for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Like the team in India, they have found that 2.5 mg is effective and causes far less sleepiness. Some patients require 5 mg, but the full 10-mg dose is rarely needed.

Although the approach is familiar at UCSF, Dr. Huppert said she doesn’t think a lot of oncologists outside of academic centers know that olanzapine is “really helpful” and that “you don’t need a high dose.” It’s “a very good clinical pearl” and “definitely a new message for some,” she said in an interview.

Over 90% of the subjects in the study were women with breast cancer. Other cancers included sarcoma, germ cell tumors, and head and neck cancer. Subjects were scheduled for their first chemotherapy session with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and high-dose cisplatin.

The trial randomized 135 patients to 10 mg of olanzapine and 132 to 2.5mg for 5 days, starting the day of their session. They were also on standard triple-antiemetic therapy (selective serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and single-dose dexamethasone).

There were no significant differences between the two arms regarding nausea and vomiting, which patients tracked in daily journals using symptom severity and visual analog scales.

For instance, 44.7% in the 2.5-mg arm and 43.7% in the 10-mg arm reported no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and no or only mild nausea (P = .87). Results were similar in the first 24 hours as well as on subsequent days.

There was also no difference in the proportion of patients who did have an emetic episode or needed rescue medication: 49.2% in the 2.5-mg arm versus 48.9% with 10 mg (P = .954).

Where the two groups split was on the incidence of daytime somnolence, which was reported by 65.2% of patients in the low-dose arm but 89.6% in the standard-dose group (P < .001). During the first 24 hours, 4.5% of low-dose patients reported severe somnolence versus 40% with 10-mg dosing (P < .001).

The overall incidence declined over the remaining study days, but the differences between the two groups were comparable. On day 5, for instance, 0.8% of low-dose patients but 8.1% of standard-dose patients reported severe somnolence (P = .004).

Low-dose patients also reported less appetite suppression.

The work was supported by the Progressive Ladies Welfare Association. Dr. Bajpai didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Huppert is an adviser for AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Women 65-70 years old are often offered the option of skipping radiation after lumpectomy for hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer and moving straight to endocrine therapy.

The recurrence rate with and without radiation is well known so women can be counseled accurately about their options. For some, the 10% risk of recurrence at 10 years without radiation seems reasonable, for others it does not.

Omitting radiation for older postmenopausal women is “very reasonable to offer so long as they are willing to accept the risk,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, chief of radiation oncology at Emory University, Atlanta.

The option, however, isn’t generally offered to postmenopausal women younger than 65 years old because their risk from skipping adjuvant radiation isn’t known, but that’s about to change.

Several teams are investigating the issue, including one led by Dr. Jagsi, who presented her and her colleagues’ latest results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In the single-arm IDEA [Individualized Decisions for Endocrine therapy Alone] study, 200 women 50-69 years old with pT1N0 unifocal hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancer agreed to the approach when it was offered to them following lumpectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy. The mean tumor size was 10 mm with margins of at least 2 mm.

The women were at low risk for recurrence, with recurrence risk scores no higher than 18 points on the Oncotype DX 21-gene assay; the mean score was 11 points.

Radiation would have been the usual next step after lumpectomy, but instead the patients went directly to endocrine therapy for 5 years, with adherence above 80%.

At 5 years, the results are “promising,” Dr. Jagsi said at the meeting. Overall and breast cancer–specific survival were both 100%, and the recurrence rate was just 1%, with two recurrences before the 5-year point. The women were a mean of 62 years old.

A similar single-arm trial, LUMINA, recently reported comparable results.

Dr. Jagsi called the findings of the studies “reassuring,” but cautioned that it will be a while before younger postmenopausal women can be offered radiation-free treatment like their older peers.

Even though the results suggest “that this might well be a really good idea,” longer follow-up and randomized data are needed “before we change the standard of care,” she said.

Of concern, for instance, is that there were six additional recurrences in the IDEA study past the 5-year mark, for a total of three recurrences among the 60 women 50-59 years old (5%) and five among the 140 women 60-69 years old (3.6%). Five of the recurrent cases were adherent to endocrine therapy.

Also, so few women in IDEA have passed the 5-year mark that “we can’t [conclude] anything” about long-term relapse risks, Dr. Jagsi said. Besides that, skipping radiation for such women at this point is “not reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi added.

Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of the UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, agreed.

“I think we have to wait. We have randomized studies that will test this in a formal way. Be that as it may, this provides the basis for a conversation physicians can have with patients because this could be an option” at some point, said Dr. Arteaga, who moderated Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

“This is a big step in trying not to do too much for patients who don’t need it,” Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio, said in an interview.

IDEA was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to coincide with Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

The study was funded by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. Dr. Jagsi has stock in Equity Quotient and research support form Genentech. Disclosure information for Arteaga was not available. Dr. Kaklamani has extensive industry ties, including being a speaker for Pfizer, Genentech, Novartis, and AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Women 65-70 years old are often offered the option of skipping radiation after lumpectomy for hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer and moving straight to endocrine therapy.

The recurrence rate with and without radiation is well known so women can be counseled accurately about their options. For some, the 10% risk of recurrence at 10 years without radiation seems reasonable, for others it does not.

Omitting radiation for older postmenopausal women is “very reasonable to offer so long as they are willing to accept the risk,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, chief of radiation oncology at Emory University, Atlanta.

The option, however, isn’t generally offered to postmenopausal women younger than 65 years old because their risk from skipping adjuvant radiation isn’t known, but that’s about to change.

Several teams are investigating the issue, including one led by Dr. Jagsi, who presented her and her colleagues’ latest results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In the single-arm IDEA [Individualized Decisions for Endocrine therapy Alone] study, 200 women 50-69 years old with pT1N0 unifocal hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancer agreed to the approach when it was offered to them following lumpectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy. The mean tumor size was 10 mm with margins of at least 2 mm.

The women were at low risk for recurrence, with recurrence risk scores no higher than 18 points on the Oncotype DX 21-gene assay; the mean score was 11 points.

Radiation would have been the usual next step after lumpectomy, but instead the patients went directly to endocrine therapy for 5 years, with adherence above 80%.

At 5 years, the results are “promising,” Dr. Jagsi said at the meeting. Overall and breast cancer–specific survival were both 100%, and the recurrence rate was just 1%, with two recurrences before the 5-year point. The women were a mean of 62 years old.

A similar single-arm trial, LUMINA, recently reported comparable results.

Dr. Jagsi called the findings of the studies “reassuring,” but cautioned that it will be a while before younger postmenopausal women can be offered radiation-free treatment like their older peers.

Even though the results suggest “that this might well be a really good idea,” longer follow-up and randomized data are needed “before we change the standard of care,” she said.

Of concern, for instance, is that there were six additional recurrences in the IDEA study past the 5-year mark, for a total of three recurrences among the 60 women 50-59 years old (5%) and five among the 140 women 60-69 years old (3.6%). Five of the recurrent cases were adherent to endocrine therapy.

Also, so few women in IDEA have passed the 5-year mark that “we can’t [conclude] anything” about long-term relapse risks, Dr. Jagsi said. Besides that, skipping radiation for such women at this point is “not reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi added.

Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of the UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, agreed.

“I think we have to wait. We have randomized studies that will test this in a formal way. Be that as it may, this provides the basis for a conversation physicians can have with patients because this could be an option” at some point, said Dr. Arteaga, who moderated Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

“This is a big step in trying not to do too much for patients who don’t need it,” Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio, said in an interview.

IDEA was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to coincide with Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

The study was funded by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. Dr. Jagsi has stock in Equity Quotient and research support form Genentech. Disclosure information for Arteaga was not available. Dr. Kaklamani has extensive industry ties, including being a speaker for Pfizer, Genentech, Novartis, and AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Women 65-70 years old are often offered the option of skipping radiation after lumpectomy for hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer and moving straight to endocrine therapy.

The recurrence rate with and without radiation is well known so women can be counseled accurately about their options. For some, the 10% risk of recurrence at 10 years without radiation seems reasonable, for others it does not.

Omitting radiation for older postmenopausal women is “very reasonable to offer so long as they are willing to accept the risk,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, chief of radiation oncology at Emory University, Atlanta.

The option, however, isn’t generally offered to postmenopausal women younger than 65 years old because their risk from skipping adjuvant radiation isn’t known, but that’s about to change.

Several teams are investigating the issue, including one led by Dr. Jagsi, who presented her and her colleagues’ latest results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In the single-arm IDEA [Individualized Decisions for Endocrine therapy Alone] study, 200 women 50-69 years old with pT1N0 unifocal hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancer agreed to the approach when it was offered to them following lumpectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy. The mean tumor size was 10 mm with margins of at least 2 mm.

The women were at low risk for recurrence, with recurrence risk scores no higher than 18 points on the Oncotype DX 21-gene assay; the mean score was 11 points.

Radiation would have been the usual next step after lumpectomy, but instead the patients went directly to endocrine therapy for 5 years, with adherence above 80%.

At 5 years, the results are “promising,” Dr. Jagsi said at the meeting. Overall and breast cancer–specific survival were both 100%, and the recurrence rate was just 1%, with two recurrences before the 5-year point. The women were a mean of 62 years old.

A similar single-arm trial, LUMINA, recently reported comparable results.

Dr. Jagsi called the findings of the studies “reassuring,” but cautioned that it will be a while before younger postmenopausal women can be offered radiation-free treatment like their older peers.

Even though the results suggest “that this might well be a really good idea,” longer follow-up and randomized data are needed “before we change the standard of care,” she said.

Of concern, for instance, is that there were six additional recurrences in the IDEA study past the 5-year mark, for a total of three recurrences among the 60 women 50-59 years old (5%) and five among the 140 women 60-69 years old (3.6%). Five of the recurrent cases were adherent to endocrine therapy.

Also, so few women in IDEA have passed the 5-year mark that “we can’t [conclude] anything” about long-term relapse risks, Dr. Jagsi said. Besides that, skipping radiation for such women at this point is “not reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi added.

Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of the UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, agreed.

“I think we have to wait. We have randomized studies that will test this in a formal way. Be that as it may, this provides the basis for a conversation physicians can have with patients because this could be an option” at some point, said Dr. Arteaga, who moderated Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

“This is a big step in trying not to do too much for patients who don’t need it,” Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio, said in an interview.

IDEA was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to coincide with Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

The study was funded by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. Dr. Jagsi has stock in Equity Quotient and research support form Genentech. Disclosure information for Arteaga was not available. Dr. Kaklamani has extensive industry ties, including being a speaker for Pfizer, Genentech, Novartis, and AstraZeneca.

TOPLINE:

Commercial health insurance does not necessarily protect cancer patients from potentially devastating out-of-pocket costs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Out-of-pocket costs contribute to financial toxicity in cancer, but little is known about how they vary across various tumor types and stages over time.
• To find out, investigators reviewed claims data for 7494 US patients diagnosed with stage I-IV breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, ovarian, or prostate cancer from 2016 to 2020.
• They assessed cumulative out-of-pocket (OOP) costs — defined as copayments, deductibles, and coinsurance — in the first 3 years following diagnosis.
• Subjects had private, commercial health insurance through United Healthcare.

TAKEAWAY:

• By the end of 3 years, average cumulative OOP costs ranged from $16,673 for stage I prostate cancer to $35,253 for stage IV lung cancer.
• Across all cancer types, average OOP costs in the first year ranged from $2,754 for stage I anal cancer to $25,876 for stage IV vaginal cancer.
• However, the upper limits of OOP costs exceeded $100,000 across many tumors and stages in the first year, reaching a high of $450,374 for stage I breast cancer and far exceeding $200,000 for stage II-IV colorectal and lung cancer.
• OOP costs were generally highest during the first year of treatment and for cancers diagnosed at later stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“OOP costs may present an extreme economic stressor on patients diagnosed with cancer,” leading to emotional distress, reduced treatment adherence, and poor outcomes. “Even cancer patients with insurance coverage [are] not protected.” Future research is “needed to help clarify the type of patient most burdened by OOP costs” as well as ways to reduce them, including promoting “diagnosis at an earlier stage and increas[ing] access to health plans that minimize patient cost sharing.”

SOURCE:

The work was led by November McGarvey of BluePath Solutions, Los Angeles, and published in the Journal of Medical Economics.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include additional OOP costs, such as transportation. It also did not assess the long-term impacts of cancer-related out-of-pocket spending. Details on health plan types and features were limited, and the results are limited to patients with commercial health insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Grail. The investigators are employees of Grail or BluePath Solutions.

TOPLINE:

Commercial health insurance does not necessarily protect cancer patients from potentially devastating out-of-pocket costs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Out-of-pocket costs contribute to financial toxicity in cancer, but little is known about how they vary across various tumor types and stages over time.
• To find out, investigators reviewed claims data for 7494 US patients diagnosed with stage I-IV breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, ovarian, or prostate cancer from 2016 to 2020.
• They assessed cumulative out-of-pocket (OOP) costs — defined as copayments, deductibles, and coinsurance — in the first 3 years following diagnosis.
• Subjects had private, commercial health insurance through United Healthcare.

TAKEAWAY:

• By the end of 3 years, average cumulative OOP costs ranged from $16,673 for stage I prostate cancer to $35,253 for stage IV lung cancer.
• Across all cancer types, average OOP costs in the first year ranged from $2,754 for stage I anal cancer to $25,876 for stage IV vaginal cancer.
• However, the upper limits of OOP costs exceeded $100,000 across many tumors and stages in the first year, reaching a high of $450,374 for stage I breast cancer and far exceeding $200,000 for stage II-IV colorectal and lung cancer.
• OOP costs were generally highest during the first year of treatment and for cancers diagnosed at later stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“OOP costs may present an extreme economic stressor on patients diagnosed with cancer,” leading to emotional distress, reduced treatment adherence, and poor outcomes. “Even cancer patients with insurance coverage [are] not protected.” Future research is “needed to help clarify the type of patient most burdened by OOP costs” as well as ways to reduce them, including promoting “diagnosis at an earlier stage and increas[ing] access to health plans that minimize patient cost sharing.”

SOURCE:

The work was led by November McGarvey of BluePath Solutions, Los Angeles, and published in the Journal of Medical Economics.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include additional OOP costs, such as transportation. It also did not assess the long-term impacts of cancer-related out-of-pocket spending. Details on health plan types and features were limited, and the results are limited to patients with commercial health insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Grail. The investigators are employees of Grail or BluePath Solutions.

TOPLINE:

Commercial health insurance does not necessarily protect cancer patients from potentially devastating out-of-pocket costs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Out-of-pocket costs contribute to financial toxicity in cancer, but little is known about how they vary across various tumor types and stages over time.
• To find out, investigators reviewed claims data for 7494 US patients diagnosed with stage I-IV breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, ovarian, or prostate cancer from 2016 to 2020.
• They assessed cumulative out-of-pocket (OOP) costs — defined as copayments, deductibles, and coinsurance — in the first 3 years following diagnosis.
• Subjects had private, commercial health insurance through United Healthcare.

TAKEAWAY:

• By the end of 3 years, average cumulative OOP costs ranged from $16,673 for stage I prostate cancer to $35,253 for stage IV lung cancer.
• Across all cancer types, average OOP costs in the first year ranged from $2,754 for stage I anal cancer to $25,876 for stage IV vaginal cancer.
• However, the upper limits of OOP costs exceeded $100,000 across many tumors and stages in the first year, reaching a high of $450,374 for stage I breast cancer and far exceeding $200,000 for stage II-IV colorectal and lung cancer.
• OOP costs were generally highest during the first year of treatment and for cancers diagnosed at later stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“OOP costs may present an extreme economic stressor on patients diagnosed with cancer,” leading to emotional distress, reduced treatment adherence, and poor outcomes. “Even cancer patients with insurance coverage [are] not protected.” Future research is “needed to help clarify the type of patient most burdened by OOP costs” as well as ways to reduce them, including promoting “diagnosis at an earlier stage and increas[ing] access to health plans that minimize patient cost sharing.”

SOURCE:

The work was led by November McGarvey of BluePath Solutions, Los Angeles, and published in the Journal of Medical Economics.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include additional OOP costs, such as transportation. It also did not assess the long-term impacts of cancer-related out-of-pocket spending. Details on health plan types and features were limited, and the results are limited to patients with commercial health insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Grail. The investigators are employees of Grail or BluePath Solutions.

A small trial headed by MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, has helped to further identify women who can safely skip surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.

Among 50 women in the study with cT1-2N0-1M0 triple negative or HER2-positive disease, 31 (62%) had a complete pathologic response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy on image-guided vacuum-assisted core biopsy (VACB).

They went onto whole breast radiation with a boost, but given their response to neoadjuvant treatment and the accuracy of VACB, the women did not have surgery.

So far, it seems to have been the right call: At 3 years, there’s been no tumor recurrences and disease-free and overall survival are both 100%.

Eliminating “breast surgery in highly-selected patients with image-guided VACB-determined pCR following” neoadjuvant systemic therapy has “very promising 3-year results,” lead investigator Henry M. Kuerer, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at MD Anderson, who presented the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 annual meeting.

The study speaks to a trend in breast cancer toward deescalation of treatment – particularly surgery – to save women from the side effects of treatments they don’t need.

With the success of modern systemic therapy, “it’s only natural that we think this way,” said Ava Kwong, PhD, chief of breast surgery at the University of Hong Kong, who discussed Dr. Kuerer’s presentation at the meeting.

“This study is really important,” she said. “It’s addressing a very important question whether we can omit surgery in certain groups of patients ... We do want to deescalate surgery,” and the study results are “very good,” she said.

However, larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to draw any firm conclusions, she said.

Dr. Kuerer agreed. He and his team will continue to follow the study subjects, and they have opened up a new trial with 100 patients. A similar study is ongoing in Korea, as well, he noted.
 

Study details

Women in the trial were a median of 60.4 years old; 58% had HER2-positive and the rest triple-negative unicentric breast cancer. Mean baseline tumor size was 2.8 cm. Just 12% of the participants had lymph node involvement. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy was clinician’s choice.

Breast lesions had to shrink to less than 2 cm on imaging after systemic therapy to be eligible for the study, and a minimum of 12 cores had to be obtained on VACB.

The 38% of women in the study with residual disease after systemic treatment went on to surgery.

Two patients were circulating tumor cell (CTC)-positive at baseline, two were positive at 6 months, and one at 12 months. No patients had CTCs detected at more than one timepoint.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kuerer is an adviser for Merck. Dr. Kwong is an adviser/speaker/reviewer/author for Stryker, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche. She also disclosed research funding from Merck, Roche, and Gilead and funding for genetic testing from AstraZeneca.

A small trial headed by MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, has helped to further identify women who can safely skip surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.

Among 50 women in the study with cT1-2N0-1M0 triple negative or HER2-positive disease, 31 (62%) had a complete pathologic response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy on image-guided vacuum-assisted core biopsy (VACB).

They went onto whole breast radiation with a boost, but given their response to neoadjuvant treatment and the accuracy of VACB, the women did not have surgery.

So far, it seems to have been the right call: At 3 years, there’s been no tumor recurrences and disease-free and overall survival are both 100%.

Eliminating “breast surgery in highly-selected patients with image-guided VACB-determined pCR following” neoadjuvant systemic therapy has “very promising 3-year results,” lead investigator Henry M. Kuerer, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at MD Anderson, who presented the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 annual meeting.

The study speaks to a trend in breast cancer toward deescalation of treatment – particularly surgery – to save women from the side effects of treatments they don’t need.

With the success of modern systemic therapy, “it’s only natural that we think this way,” said Ava Kwong, PhD, chief of breast surgery at the University of Hong Kong, who discussed Dr. Kuerer’s presentation at the meeting.

“This study is really important,” she said. “It’s addressing a very important question whether we can omit surgery in certain groups of patients ... We do want to deescalate surgery,” and the study results are “very good,” she said.

However, larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to draw any firm conclusions, she said.

Dr. Kuerer agreed. He and his team will continue to follow the study subjects, and they have opened up a new trial with 100 patients. A similar study is ongoing in Korea, as well, he noted.
 

Study details

Women in the trial were a median of 60.4 years old; 58% had HER2-positive and the rest triple-negative unicentric breast cancer. Mean baseline tumor size was 2.8 cm. Just 12% of the participants had lymph node involvement. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy was clinician’s choice.

Breast lesions had to shrink to less than 2 cm on imaging after systemic therapy to be eligible for the study, and a minimum of 12 cores had to be obtained on VACB.

The 38% of women in the study with residual disease after systemic treatment went on to surgery.

Two patients were circulating tumor cell (CTC)-positive at baseline, two were positive at 6 months, and one at 12 months. No patients had CTCs detected at more than one timepoint.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kuerer is an adviser for Merck. Dr. Kwong is an adviser/speaker/reviewer/author for Stryker, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche. She also disclosed research funding from Merck, Roche, and Gilead and funding for genetic testing from AstraZeneca.

A small trial headed by MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, has helped to further identify women who can safely skip surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.

Among 50 women in the study with cT1-2N0-1M0 triple negative or HER2-positive disease, 31 (62%) had a complete pathologic response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy on image-guided vacuum-assisted core biopsy (VACB).

They went onto whole breast radiation with a boost, but given their response to neoadjuvant treatment and the accuracy of VACB, the women did not have surgery.

So far, it seems to have been the right call: At 3 years, there’s been no tumor recurrences and disease-free and overall survival are both 100%.

Eliminating “breast surgery in highly-selected patients with image-guided VACB-determined pCR following” neoadjuvant systemic therapy has “very promising 3-year results,” lead investigator Henry M. Kuerer, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at MD Anderson, who presented the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 annual meeting.

The study speaks to a trend in breast cancer toward deescalation of treatment – particularly surgery – to save women from the side effects of treatments they don’t need.

With the success of modern systemic therapy, “it’s only natural that we think this way,” said Ava Kwong, PhD, chief of breast surgery at the University of Hong Kong, who discussed Dr. Kuerer’s presentation at the meeting.

“This study is really important,” she said. “It’s addressing a very important question whether we can omit surgery in certain groups of patients ... We do want to deescalate surgery,” and the study results are “very good,” she said.

However, larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to draw any firm conclusions, she said.

Dr. Kuerer agreed. He and his team will continue to follow the study subjects, and they have opened up a new trial with 100 patients. A similar study is ongoing in Korea, as well, he noted.
 

Study details

Women in the trial were a median of 60.4 years old; 58% had HER2-positive and the rest triple-negative unicentric breast cancer. Mean baseline tumor size was 2.8 cm. Just 12% of the participants had lymph node involvement. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy was clinician’s choice.

Breast lesions had to shrink to less than 2 cm on imaging after systemic therapy to be eligible for the study, and a minimum of 12 cores had to be obtained on VACB.

The 38% of women in the study with residual disease after systemic treatment went on to surgery.

Two patients were circulating tumor cell (CTC)-positive at baseline, two were positive at 6 months, and one at 12 months. No patients had CTCs detected at more than one timepoint.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kuerer is an adviser for Merck. Dr. Kwong is an adviser/speaker/reviewer/author for Stryker, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche. She also disclosed research funding from Merck, Roche, and Gilead and funding for genetic testing from AstraZeneca.

The antibody-drug conjugate tisotumab vedotin bested chemotherapy for the second- or third-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer in the InnovaTV 301 trial, which was presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.

Median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months among 253 women randomized to tisotumab vedotin (TV) monotherapy versus 9.5 months among 249 randomized to investigators’ choice of chemotherapy, a 30% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0038).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months with TV versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (P < .0001), but survival benefits were not statistically significant in a number of subgroups.

Nonetheless, “tisotumab vedotin should be considered as a potential new standard of care for patients who have progressed after first-line systemic therapy,” said lead investigator Ignace Vergote, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, who presented the findings.
 

New and emerging options

The trial serves as the confirmation the Food and Drug Administration required when it gave TV accelerated approval in 2021 for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/m CC) that’s progressed during or after first-line treatment, an approval based on response rates in an earlier phase 2 trial, the InnovaTV 204 study.

TV is the only antibody-drug conjugate approved for the indication, but another agent is also under investigation, the anti-PD-1 cemiplimab. It’s not yet approved for r/m CC, but it is approved in the United States for locally advanced/metastatic basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.

Cemiplimab outcomes were similar to TV’s in a phase 3 trial following progression on first-line treatment without anti-PD-1 therapy, with a median OS of 12 months with cemiplimab versus 8.5 months with investigators’ choice of chemotherapy.

Pembrolizumab is also approved as monotherapy for r/m CC for PD-L1 positive women after progression on or during first-line treatment based on response outcomes, not survival.

The question now is how to pick among the various options, said Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the University of California, Irvine, who discussed InnovaTV 301 at the meeting.

In the second line for r/m CC, “we can hypothetically consider” TV monotherapy; pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive women not previously exposed to a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI); cemiplimab in women not previously exposed to a CPI, and perhaps TV plus pembrolizumab, also in women new to CPIs.

It remains particularly unclear at the moment how to select between TV and cemiplimab monotherapy, if cemiplimab is approved for the indication.

One difference is that unlike in the cemiplimab trial, 28.1% of women treated with TV in the phase 3 trial had been on an anti-PD-(L)1 in the first line. However, although PFS benefits were statistically significant for TV after checkpoint inhibitor exposure, OS benefit was not.

Regarding cost, TV was administered at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks in Innova; 40 mg costs around $7,000.

Cemiplimab was dosed at 350 mg every 3 weeks in its trial; a single dose costs over $10,000.
 

Subgroups fall short of statistical significance

In InnovaTV 301, 12-month OS was about 48.7% with TV versus 35% with chemotherapy; 6-month PFS was 30.4% with TV versus 18.9%.

The PFS benefit with TV did not reach statistical significance among the 35.2% of women who had not been treated with bevacizumab in the first-line, and there was no OS benefit or trend to benefit (HR 1.0) for them.

In addition to women previously treated with an anti-PD-1, OS benefits with TV were not statistically significant among the 54.2% of women with baseline performance scores of 0; the 36.8% with adeno or adenosquamous carcinoma, and the 62.8% who had been on one prior systemic regimen instead two.

Women in the trial were a median of 50 years old, and fewer than 7% were from the United States. Investigator choice of chemotherapy included topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed.

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 29.2% with TV and 45.2% with chemotherapy.

The known side effects of TV were all higher than in the chemotherapy arm, including grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (5.2%), ocular events (3.2%), and bleeding (0.8%).

The study was funded in part by Genmab and SeaGen, the companies co-developing TV. Dr. Vergote is an adviser to both companies and many others. Dr. Tewari is an adviser/consultant, researcher, and speaker for SeaGen and Genmab as well as for Merck, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

The antibody-drug conjugate tisotumab vedotin bested chemotherapy for the second- or third-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer in the InnovaTV 301 trial, which was presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.

Median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months among 253 women randomized to tisotumab vedotin (TV) monotherapy versus 9.5 months among 249 randomized to investigators’ choice of chemotherapy, a 30% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0038).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months with TV versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (P < .0001), but survival benefits were not statistically significant in a number of subgroups.

Nonetheless, “tisotumab vedotin should be considered as a potential new standard of care for patients who have progressed after first-line systemic therapy,” said lead investigator Ignace Vergote, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, who presented the findings.
 

New and emerging options

The trial serves as the confirmation the Food and Drug Administration required when it gave TV accelerated approval in 2021 for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/m CC) that’s progressed during or after first-line treatment, an approval based on response rates in an earlier phase 2 trial, the InnovaTV 204 study.

TV is the only antibody-drug conjugate approved for the indication, but another agent is also under investigation, the anti-PD-1 cemiplimab. It’s not yet approved for r/m CC, but it is approved in the United States for locally advanced/metastatic basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.

Cemiplimab outcomes were similar to TV’s in a phase 3 trial following progression on first-line treatment without anti-PD-1 therapy, with a median OS of 12 months with cemiplimab versus 8.5 months with investigators’ choice of chemotherapy.

Pembrolizumab is also approved as monotherapy for r/m CC for PD-L1 positive women after progression on or during first-line treatment based on response outcomes, not survival.

The question now is how to pick among the various options, said Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the University of California, Irvine, who discussed InnovaTV 301 at the meeting.

In the second line for r/m CC, “we can hypothetically consider” TV monotherapy; pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive women not previously exposed to a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI); cemiplimab in women not previously exposed to a CPI, and perhaps TV plus pembrolizumab, also in women new to CPIs.

It remains particularly unclear at the moment how to select between TV and cemiplimab monotherapy, if cemiplimab is approved for the indication.

One difference is that unlike in the cemiplimab trial, 28.1% of women treated with TV in the phase 3 trial had been on an anti-PD-(L)1 in the first line. However, although PFS benefits were statistically significant for TV after checkpoint inhibitor exposure, OS benefit was not.

Regarding cost, TV was administered at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks in Innova; 40 mg costs around $7,000.

Cemiplimab was dosed at 350 mg every 3 weeks in its trial; a single dose costs over $10,000.
 

Subgroups fall short of statistical significance

In InnovaTV 301, 12-month OS was about 48.7% with TV versus 35% with chemotherapy; 6-month PFS was 30.4% with TV versus 18.9%.

The PFS benefit with TV did not reach statistical significance among the 35.2% of women who had not been treated with bevacizumab in the first-line, and there was no OS benefit or trend to benefit (HR 1.0) for them.

In addition to women previously treated with an anti-PD-1, OS benefits with TV were not statistically significant among the 54.2% of women with baseline performance scores of 0; the 36.8% with adeno or adenosquamous carcinoma, and the 62.8% who had been on one prior systemic regimen instead two.

Women in the trial were a median of 50 years old, and fewer than 7% were from the United States. Investigator choice of chemotherapy included topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed.

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 29.2% with TV and 45.2% with chemotherapy.

The known side effects of TV were all higher than in the chemotherapy arm, including grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (5.2%), ocular events (3.2%), and bleeding (0.8%).

The study was funded in part by Genmab and SeaGen, the companies co-developing TV. Dr. Vergote is an adviser to both companies and many others. Dr. Tewari is an adviser/consultant, researcher, and speaker for SeaGen and Genmab as well as for Merck, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

The antibody-drug conjugate tisotumab vedotin bested chemotherapy for the second- or third-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer in the InnovaTV 301 trial, which was presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.

Median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months among 253 women randomized to tisotumab vedotin (TV) monotherapy versus 9.5 months among 249 randomized to investigators’ choice of chemotherapy, a 30% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0038).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months with TV versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (P < .0001), but survival benefits were not statistically significant in a number of subgroups.

Nonetheless, “tisotumab vedotin should be considered as a potential new standard of care for patients who have progressed after first-line systemic therapy,” said lead investigator Ignace Vergote, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, who presented the findings.
 

New and emerging options

The trial serves as the confirmation the Food and Drug Administration required when it gave TV accelerated approval in 2021 for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/m CC) that’s progressed during or after first-line treatment, an approval based on response rates in an earlier phase 2 trial, the InnovaTV 204 study.

TV is the only antibody-drug conjugate approved for the indication, but another agent is also under investigation, the anti-PD-1 cemiplimab. It’s not yet approved for r/m CC, but it is approved in the United States for locally advanced/metastatic basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.

Cemiplimab outcomes were similar to TV’s in a phase 3 trial following progression on first-line treatment without anti-PD-1 therapy, with a median OS of 12 months with cemiplimab versus 8.5 months with investigators’ choice of chemotherapy.

Pembrolizumab is also approved as monotherapy for r/m CC for PD-L1 positive women after progression on or during first-line treatment based on response outcomes, not survival.

The question now is how to pick among the various options, said Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the University of California, Irvine, who discussed InnovaTV 301 at the meeting.

In the second line for r/m CC, “we can hypothetically consider” TV monotherapy; pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive women not previously exposed to a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI); cemiplimab in women not previously exposed to a CPI, and perhaps TV plus pembrolizumab, also in women new to CPIs.

It remains particularly unclear at the moment how to select between TV and cemiplimab monotherapy, if cemiplimab is approved for the indication.

One difference is that unlike in the cemiplimab trial, 28.1% of women treated with TV in the phase 3 trial had been on an anti-PD-(L)1 in the first line. However, although PFS benefits were statistically significant for TV after checkpoint inhibitor exposure, OS benefit was not.

Regarding cost, TV was administered at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks in Innova; 40 mg costs around $7,000.

Cemiplimab was dosed at 350 mg every 3 weeks in its trial; a single dose costs over $10,000.
 

Subgroups fall short of statistical significance

In InnovaTV 301, 12-month OS was about 48.7% with TV versus 35% with chemotherapy; 6-month PFS was 30.4% with TV versus 18.9%.

The PFS benefit with TV did not reach statistical significance among the 35.2% of women who had not been treated with bevacizumab in the first-line, and there was no OS benefit or trend to benefit (HR 1.0) for them.

In addition to women previously treated with an anti-PD-1, OS benefits with TV were not statistically significant among the 54.2% of women with baseline performance scores of 0; the 36.8% with adeno or adenosquamous carcinoma, and the 62.8% who had been on one prior systemic regimen instead two.

Women in the trial were a median of 50 years old, and fewer than 7% were from the United States. Investigator choice of chemotherapy included topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed.

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 29.2% with TV and 45.2% with chemotherapy.

The known side effects of TV were all higher than in the chemotherapy arm, including grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (5.2%), ocular events (3.2%), and bleeding (0.8%).

The study was funded in part by Genmab and SeaGen, the companies co-developing TV. Dr. Vergote is an adviser to both companies and many others. Dr. Tewari is an adviser/consultant, researcher, and speaker for SeaGen and Genmab as well as for Merck, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

Six weeks of induction chemotherapy before definitive chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer substantially improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.

Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.

She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.

Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m² followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m² plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.

“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.

Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.

“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.

Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.

KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.

Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.

He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.

Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.

It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.

The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.

One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.

Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.

The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.

Six weeks of induction chemotherapy before definitive chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer substantially improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.

Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.

She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.

Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m² followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m² plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.

“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.

Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.

“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.

Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.

KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.

Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.

He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.

Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.

It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.

The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.

One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.

Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.

The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.

Six weeks of induction chemotherapy before definitive chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer substantially improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.

Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.

She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.

Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m² followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m² plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.

“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.

Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.

“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.

Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.

KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.

Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.

He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.

Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.

It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.

The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.

One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.

Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.

The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.