M. Alexander Otto

Enfortumab vedotin (Padcev) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is being called the new standard of care for the upfront treatment of locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma following a phase 3 trial presented at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology annual meeting.

The combination soundly beat the current standard of care – platinum-based chemotherapy – with a median overall survival of 31.5 months among 442 subjects versus 16.1 months among 444 randomized to gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin, an unprecedented 53% drop in the risk of mortality (P < .00001).

The elimination of chemotherapy also meant that there were substantially fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events with the new combination.

“This is the first time we’ve managed to beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting for overall survival despite multiple previous attempts.” The 30% remission rate with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab “is not something we’ve seen before,” said lead investigator Thomas Powles, MBBS, MD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the University of London, who presented the findings.

“We welcome a new standard of care in the management of advanced, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab,” said Andrea Apolo, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and discussant on the trial, dubbed EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39.

The news overshadowed a second trial presented immediately after Dr. Powles’ that also showed improvement in overall survival versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy, CheckMate 901.

Instead of replacing chemotherapy, CheckMate 901 added nivolumab. With 304 patients randomized to each arm, nivolumab add-on led to a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 18.9 months with stand-alone gemcitabine/cisplatin, a 22% drop in the risk of mortality (P = .0171).

It’s the first time that adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy improved survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, said lead investigator Michiel van der Heijden, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

After decades of stagnation, Dr. Apolo said, it’s “monumental for our field” to have two trials that beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting.

However, she said that the much better survival with enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab means that the combination now “takes first place as the best first-line regimen in urothelial carcinoma.”
 

Major disruptions in the treatment paradigm

The crowning of a new first-line standard for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma means that everything else in the treatment paradigm has to shift, Dr. Apolo said, and there are many new questions that need to be answered.

Among the most pressing, should the previous first-line standard – platinum-based chemotherapy – now move to the second line and be considered the treatment of choice after progression? Also, is there still a role for the previous second-line standards, pembrolizumab and other immunotherapies, if pembrolizumab fails in the first line?

Dr. Apolo said investigators also need to figure out if there is a role for enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab in earlier-stage disease, such as muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and if the dose and duration of enfortumab vedotin can be reduced to limit its peculiar ocular and other toxicities.

Finally, “we must discuss cost,” she said. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) is expensive. “Will payers be able to afford” it?

Dr. Powles, the lead investigator on EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39, said he doesn’t know how negotiations are going with payers, but that he hopes they move quickly. “We’ve seen transformative results” with the combination for even aggressive cancers in very sick people. “I think it’s going to be a challenge with patients not to talk about these data.”
 

EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 details

Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab, and the makers/marketers of enfortumab vedotin, Astellas and Seagen, said they will use EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 to seek a first-line indication for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators.

They also said the results serve as the confirmation FDA required when it gave accelerated approval to the combination in April 2023 for cisplatin-ineligible patients based on tumor response rates and response durability, according to press releases from the companies.

Pembrolizumab (P) in the trial was dosed at 200 mg on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles to a maximum of 35 cycles; enfortumab vedotin (EV) was given on the first and eighth day of the cycle with no limit in the number of cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Cisplatin or carboplatin (C) in the control arm was delivered on the first day and gemcitabine (G) on the first and eighth days for up to six 3-week cycles.

Patients in both arms were split about equally between performance statuses of 0 or 1; less than 4% in each group had statuses of 2.

Echoing the overall survival (OS) results, progression-free survival (PFS) was a median of 12.5 months with EV-P versus 6.3 months with GC, a 55% drop in the risk of progression or death (P < .00001).

The results held regardless of PD-L1 expression, cisplatin eligibility, and the presence or absence of visceral metastases.

Follow-up treatments in the trial begin to address Dr. Apolo’s questions: Almost 60% of GC patients went on to a PD-1/L1 for subsequent maintenance or progression, and almost a quarter of EV+P patients went on to subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 55.9% of subjects in the EV+P group versus 69.5% in the GC arm.

The most common in the chemotherapy arm were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and nausea. The most common with EV+P were skin reactions, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and anemia,
 

CheckMate 901 details

In CheckMate 901, gemcitabine and cisplatin were administered on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles for up to 6 cycles; subjects randomized to nivolumab add-on received 360 mg on day 1 of each cycle, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.

PFS results again mirrored OS, with a median PFS of 7.9 months in the nivolumab arm versus 7.6 months with stand-alone chemotherapy, a 28% drop in the risk of progression or death (P = .0012).

Although OS and PFS benefits were statistically significant overall, they were not significant in subgroup analyses of patients 65 years and older, women, or in patients with liver metastases.

Trends in OS and PFS actually favored chemotherapy in the 40 U.S. subjects (HR OS, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-3.88).

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 61.8% with nivolumab add-on versus 51.7% with chemotherapy alone. Anemia and neutropenia were the most common in both arms, and higher in the nivolumab group.

EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 was funded by Seagen, Astellas, and Merck. CheckMate 901 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of nivolumab.

Dr. Powles reported extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, including being an advisor to and receiving research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, SeaGen, and Astellas, as well as travel expenses from Merck. Among other disclosures, Dr. Heijden is an advisor to Seagen and an advisor and researcher for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Apolo is an unpaid consultant to Merck, Astellas, Seagen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.

Enfortumab vedotin (Padcev) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is being called the new standard of care for the upfront treatment of locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma following a phase 3 trial presented at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology annual meeting.

The combination soundly beat the current standard of care – platinum-based chemotherapy – with a median overall survival of 31.5 months among 442 subjects versus 16.1 months among 444 randomized to gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin, an unprecedented 53% drop in the risk of mortality (P < .00001).

The elimination of chemotherapy also meant that there were substantially fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events with the new combination.

“This is the first time we’ve managed to beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting for overall survival despite multiple previous attempts.” The 30% remission rate with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab “is not something we’ve seen before,” said lead investigator Thomas Powles, MBBS, MD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the University of London, who presented the findings.

“We welcome a new standard of care in the management of advanced, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab,” said Andrea Apolo, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and discussant on the trial, dubbed EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39.

The news overshadowed a second trial presented immediately after Dr. Powles’ that also showed improvement in overall survival versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy, CheckMate 901.

Instead of replacing chemotherapy, CheckMate 901 added nivolumab. With 304 patients randomized to each arm, nivolumab add-on led to a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 18.9 months with stand-alone gemcitabine/cisplatin, a 22% drop in the risk of mortality (P = .0171).

It’s the first time that adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy improved survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, said lead investigator Michiel van der Heijden, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

After decades of stagnation, Dr. Apolo said, it’s “monumental for our field” to have two trials that beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting.

However, she said that the much better survival with enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab means that the combination now “takes first place as the best first-line regimen in urothelial carcinoma.”
 

Major disruptions in the treatment paradigm

The crowning of a new first-line standard for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma means that everything else in the treatment paradigm has to shift, Dr. Apolo said, and there are many new questions that need to be answered.

Among the most pressing, should the previous first-line standard – platinum-based chemotherapy – now move to the second line and be considered the treatment of choice after progression? Also, is there still a role for the previous second-line standards, pembrolizumab and other immunotherapies, if pembrolizumab fails in the first line?

Dr. Apolo said investigators also need to figure out if there is a role for enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab in earlier-stage disease, such as muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and if the dose and duration of enfortumab vedotin can be reduced to limit its peculiar ocular and other toxicities.

Finally, “we must discuss cost,” she said. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) is expensive. “Will payers be able to afford” it?

Dr. Powles, the lead investigator on EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39, said he doesn’t know how negotiations are going with payers, but that he hopes they move quickly. “We’ve seen transformative results” with the combination for even aggressive cancers in very sick people. “I think it’s going to be a challenge with patients not to talk about these data.”
 

EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 details

Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab, and the makers/marketers of enfortumab vedotin, Astellas and Seagen, said they will use EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 to seek a first-line indication for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators.

They also said the results serve as the confirmation FDA required when it gave accelerated approval to the combination in April 2023 for cisplatin-ineligible patients based on tumor response rates and response durability, according to press releases from the companies.

Pembrolizumab (P) in the trial was dosed at 200 mg on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles to a maximum of 35 cycles; enfortumab vedotin (EV) was given on the first and eighth day of the cycle with no limit in the number of cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Cisplatin or carboplatin (C) in the control arm was delivered on the first day and gemcitabine (G) on the first and eighth days for up to six 3-week cycles.

Patients in both arms were split about equally between performance statuses of 0 or 1; less than 4% in each group had statuses of 2.

Echoing the overall survival (OS) results, progression-free survival (PFS) was a median of 12.5 months with EV-P versus 6.3 months with GC, a 55% drop in the risk of progression or death (P < .00001).

The results held regardless of PD-L1 expression, cisplatin eligibility, and the presence or absence of visceral metastases.

Follow-up treatments in the trial begin to address Dr. Apolo’s questions: Almost 60% of GC patients went on to a PD-1/L1 for subsequent maintenance or progression, and almost a quarter of EV+P patients went on to subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 55.9% of subjects in the EV+P group versus 69.5% in the GC arm.

The most common in the chemotherapy arm were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and nausea. The most common with EV+P were skin reactions, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and anemia,
 

CheckMate 901 details

In CheckMate 901, gemcitabine and cisplatin were administered on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles for up to 6 cycles; subjects randomized to nivolumab add-on received 360 mg on day 1 of each cycle, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.

PFS results again mirrored OS, with a median PFS of 7.9 months in the nivolumab arm versus 7.6 months with stand-alone chemotherapy, a 28% drop in the risk of progression or death (P = .0012).

Although OS and PFS benefits were statistically significant overall, they were not significant in subgroup analyses of patients 65 years and older, women, or in patients with liver metastases.

Trends in OS and PFS actually favored chemotherapy in the 40 U.S. subjects (HR OS, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-3.88).

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 61.8% with nivolumab add-on versus 51.7% with chemotherapy alone. Anemia and neutropenia were the most common in both arms, and higher in the nivolumab group.

EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 was funded by Seagen, Astellas, and Merck. CheckMate 901 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of nivolumab.

Dr. Powles reported extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, including being an advisor to and receiving research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, SeaGen, and Astellas, as well as travel expenses from Merck. Among other disclosures, Dr. Heijden is an advisor to Seagen and an advisor and researcher for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Apolo is an unpaid consultant to Merck, Astellas, Seagen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.

Enfortumab vedotin (Padcev) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is being called the new standard of care for the upfront treatment of locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma following a phase 3 trial presented at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology annual meeting.

The combination soundly beat the current standard of care – platinum-based chemotherapy – with a median overall survival of 31.5 months among 442 subjects versus 16.1 months among 444 randomized to gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin, an unprecedented 53% drop in the risk of mortality (P < .00001).

The elimination of chemotherapy also meant that there were substantially fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events with the new combination.

“This is the first time we’ve managed to beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting for overall survival despite multiple previous attempts.” The 30% remission rate with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab “is not something we’ve seen before,” said lead investigator Thomas Powles, MBBS, MD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the University of London, who presented the findings.

“We welcome a new standard of care in the management of advanced, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab,” said Andrea Apolo, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and discussant on the trial, dubbed EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39.

The news overshadowed a second trial presented immediately after Dr. Powles’ that also showed improvement in overall survival versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy, CheckMate 901.

Instead of replacing chemotherapy, CheckMate 901 added nivolumab. With 304 patients randomized to each arm, nivolumab add-on led to a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 18.9 months with stand-alone gemcitabine/cisplatin, a 22% drop in the risk of mortality (P = .0171).

It’s the first time that adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy improved survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, said lead investigator Michiel van der Heijden, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

After decades of stagnation, Dr. Apolo said, it’s “monumental for our field” to have two trials that beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting.

However, she said that the much better survival with enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab means that the combination now “takes first place as the best first-line regimen in urothelial carcinoma.”
 

Major disruptions in the treatment paradigm

The crowning of a new first-line standard for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma means that everything else in the treatment paradigm has to shift, Dr. Apolo said, and there are many new questions that need to be answered.

Among the most pressing, should the previous first-line standard – platinum-based chemotherapy – now move to the second line and be considered the treatment of choice after progression? Also, is there still a role for the previous second-line standards, pembrolizumab and other immunotherapies, if pembrolizumab fails in the first line?

Dr. Apolo said investigators also need to figure out if there is a role for enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab in earlier-stage disease, such as muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and if the dose and duration of enfortumab vedotin can be reduced to limit its peculiar ocular and other toxicities.

Finally, “we must discuss cost,” she said. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) is expensive. “Will payers be able to afford” it?

Dr. Powles, the lead investigator on EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39, said he doesn’t know how negotiations are going with payers, but that he hopes they move quickly. “We’ve seen transformative results” with the combination for even aggressive cancers in very sick people. “I think it’s going to be a challenge with patients not to talk about these data.”
 

EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 details

Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab, and the makers/marketers of enfortumab vedotin, Astellas and Seagen, said they will use EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 to seek a first-line indication for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators.

They also said the results serve as the confirmation FDA required when it gave accelerated approval to the combination in April 2023 for cisplatin-ineligible patients based on tumor response rates and response durability, according to press releases from the companies.

Pembrolizumab (P) in the trial was dosed at 200 mg on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles to a maximum of 35 cycles; enfortumab vedotin (EV) was given on the first and eighth day of the cycle with no limit in the number of cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Cisplatin or carboplatin (C) in the control arm was delivered on the first day and gemcitabine (G) on the first and eighth days for up to six 3-week cycles.

Patients in both arms were split about equally between performance statuses of 0 or 1; less than 4% in each group had statuses of 2.

Echoing the overall survival (OS) results, progression-free survival (PFS) was a median of 12.5 months with EV-P versus 6.3 months with GC, a 55% drop in the risk of progression or death (P < .00001).

The results held regardless of PD-L1 expression, cisplatin eligibility, and the presence or absence of visceral metastases.

Follow-up treatments in the trial begin to address Dr. Apolo’s questions: Almost 60% of GC patients went on to a PD-1/L1 for subsequent maintenance or progression, and almost a quarter of EV+P patients went on to subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 55.9% of subjects in the EV+P group versus 69.5% in the GC arm.

The most common in the chemotherapy arm were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and nausea. The most common with EV+P were skin reactions, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and anemia,
 

CheckMate 901 details

In CheckMate 901, gemcitabine and cisplatin were administered on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles for up to 6 cycles; subjects randomized to nivolumab add-on received 360 mg on day 1 of each cycle, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.

PFS results again mirrored OS, with a median PFS of 7.9 months in the nivolumab arm versus 7.6 months with stand-alone chemotherapy, a 28% drop in the risk of progression or death (P = .0012).

Although OS and PFS benefits were statistically significant overall, they were not significant in subgroup analyses of patients 65 years and older, women, or in patients with liver metastases.

Trends in OS and PFS actually favored chemotherapy in the 40 U.S. subjects (HR OS, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-3.88).

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 61.8% with nivolumab add-on versus 51.7% with chemotherapy alone. Anemia and neutropenia were the most common in both arms, and higher in the nivolumab group.

EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 was funded by Seagen, Astellas, and Merck. CheckMate 901 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of nivolumab.

Dr. Powles reported extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, including being an advisor to and receiving research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, SeaGen, and Astellas, as well as travel expenses from Merck. Among other disclosures, Dr. Heijden is an advisor to Seagen and an advisor and researcher for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Apolo is an unpaid consultant to Merck, Astellas, Seagen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) improved progression-free survival when added to standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the first-line for newly diagnosed, locally advanced cervical cancer in the KEYNOTE-A18 trial, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Overall survival (OS) trends also favored pembrolizumab add-on, but OS data in the interim analysis was not mature and did not reach statistical significance.

The study “supports pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy as a new potential standard of care” in the first-line setting for high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer, said lead investigator Domenica Lorusso, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Catholic University of Rome, who reported the findings at the meeting.

The results of the trial “are compelling, especially considering newly diagnosed patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer have not seen an advance in treatment options in 20 years,” she said in a press release from pembrolizumab maker Merck.

Trial data are under review at the Food and Drug Administration as part of Merck’s application for a first-line indication for pembrolizumab added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer; the agency’s decision is expected in Jan. 2024.

Pembrolizumab already carries indications for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Women in the trial were new to treatment and had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease; almost 85% had squamous cell cancer. About half the women were White; 28% were Asian, and about 2% were Black. About 5% of subjects were PD-L1 negative.

Overall, 529 women were randomized to 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for five cycles with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT); they then received pembrolizumab 400 mg every 6 weeks for 15 cycles; 531 were randomized to placebo with CCRT, followed by 15 6-week placebo cycles.

CCRT included five cycles of cisplatin 40 mg/m² every week for 5-6 weeks plus external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy.

Two-year progression-free survival was 57.3% with placebo but 67.8% with pembrolizumab add-on, a 30% reduction in the risk of progression (P = .002).

On subgroup analysis, pembrolizumab’s PFS benefit was not statistically significant for White women (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.15) and women with stage 1B2 to 2B disease (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63-1.31), among others.

Although OS is not yet mature, 80.8% of placebo subjects but 87.2% of pembrolizumab women were alive at 2 years, a 27% drop in the risk of death (95% CI, 0.49-1.07).

At the meeting, Bradley Monk, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was also the study discussant, noted that “the magnitude of the benefit here is difficult to interpret because 55% of the patients [were] still on treatment” in the interim analysis, but the difference “is substantial enough for us to have confidence.”

Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were 60.6% in the placebo group and 67% with pembrolizumab, with anemia, nausea, and diarrhea the most common.

Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 1.1% of placebo and 4.2% of pembrolizumab subjects; hypothyroidism was the most common with pembrolizumab.

Protocol amendments in the trial included a change from PFS assessment by blinded, independent, central review to investigator assessment.

In the press release, Dr. Monk, said the results “demonstrate that, by moving an immunotherapy regimen to earlier stages of cervical cancer, we have the potential to improve outcomes for these patients compared to the current standard of care.”

The study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. Investigators reported wide-ranging ties to the company, including Dr. Lorusso, who reported honoraria from Merck as well as ties to other companies. Dr. Monk also had deep industry ties, including being a speaker and consultant for Merck and reporting honoraria from the company.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) improved progression-free survival when added to standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the first-line for newly diagnosed, locally advanced cervical cancer in the KEYNOTE-A18 trial, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Overall survival (OS) trends also favored pembrolizumab add-on, but OS data in the interim analysis was not mature and did not reach statistical significance.

The study “supports pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy as a new potential standard of care” in the first-line setting for high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer, said lead investigator Domenica Lorusso, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Catholic University of Rome, who reported the findings at the meeting.

The results of the trial “are compelling, especially considering newly diagnosed patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer have not seen an advance in treatment options in 20 years,” she said in a press release from pembrolizumab maker Merck.

Trial data are under review at the Food and Drug Administration as part of Merck’s application for a first-line indication for pembrolizumab added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer; the agency’s decision is expected in Jan. 2024.

Pembrolizumab already carries indications for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Women in the trial were new to treatment and had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease; almost 85% had squamous cell cancer. About half the women were White; 28% were Asian, and about 2% were Black. About 5% of subjects were PD-L1 negative.

Overall, 529 women were randomized to 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for five cycles with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT); they then received pembrolizumab 400 mg every 6 weeks for 15 cycles; 531 were randomized to placebo with CCRT, followed by 15 6-week placebo cycles.

CCRT included five cycles of cisplatin 40 mg/m² every week for 5-6 weeks plus external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy.

Two-year progression-free survival was 57.3% with placebo but 67.8% with pembrolizumab add-on, a 30% reduction in the risk of progression (P = .002).

On subgroup analysis, pembrolizumab’s PFS benefit was not statistically significant for White women (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.15) and women with stage 1B2 to 2B disease (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63-1.31), among others.

Although OS is not yet mature, 80.8% of placebo subjects but 87.2% of pembrolizumab women were alive at 2 years, a 27% drop in the risk of death (95% CI, 0.49-1.07).

At the meeting, Bradley Monk, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was also the study discussant, noted that “the magnitude of the benefit here is difficult to interpret because 55% of the patients [were] still on treatment” in the interim analysis, but the difference “is substantial enough for us to have confidence.”

Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were 60.6% in the placebo group and 67% with pembrolizumab, with anemia, nausea, and diarrhea the most common.

Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 1.1% of placebo and 4.2% of pembrolizumab subjects; hypothyroidism was the most common with pembrolizumab.

Protocol amendments in the trial included a change from PFS assessment by blinded, independent, central review to investigator assessment.

In the press release, Dr. Monk, said the results “demonstrate that, by moving an immunotherapy regimen to earlier stages of cervical cancer, we have the potential to improve outcomes for these patients compared to the current standard of care.”

The study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. Investigators reported wide-ranging ties to the company, including Dr. Lorusso, who reported honoraria from Merck as well as ties to other companies. Dr. Monk also had deep industry ties, including being a speaker and consultant for Merck and reporting honoraria from the company.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) improved progression-free survival when added to standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the first-line for newly diagnosed, locally advanced cervical cancer in the KEYNOTE-A18 trial, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Overall survival (OS) trends also favored pembrolizumab add-on, but OS data in the interim analysis was not mature and did not reach statistical significance.

The study “supports pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy as a new potential standard of care” in the first-line setting for high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer, said lead investigator Domenica Lorusso, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Catholic University of Rome, who reported the findings at the meeting.

The results of the trial “are compelling, especially considering newly diagnosed patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer have not seen an advance in treatment options in 20 years,” she said in a press release from pembrolizumab maker Merck.

Trial data are under review at the Food and Drug Administration as part of Merck’s application for a first-line indication for pembrolizumab added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer; the agency’s decision is expected in Jan. 2024.

Pembrolizumab already carries indications for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Women in the trial were new to treatment and had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease; almost 85% had squamous cell cancer. About half the women were White; 28% were Asian, and about 2% were Black. About 5% of subjects were PD-L1 negative.

Overall, 529 women were randomized to 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for five cycles with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT); they then received pembrolizumab 400 mg every 6 weeks for 15 cycles; 531 were randomized to placebo with CCRT, followed by 15 6-week placebo cycles.

CCRT included five cycles of cisplatin 40 mg/m² every week for 5-6 weeks plus external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy.

Two-year progression-free survival was 57.3% with placebo but 67.8% with pembrolizumab add-on, a 30% reduction in the risk of progression (P = .002).

On subgroup analysis, pembrolizumab’s PFS benefit was not statistically significant for White women (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.15) and women with stage 1B2 to 2B disease (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63-1.31), among others.

Although OS is not yet mature, 80.8% of placebo subjects but 87.2% of pembrolizumab women were alive at 2 years, a 27% drop in the risk of death (95% CI, 0.49-1.07).

At the meeting, Bradley Monk, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was also the study discussant, noted that “the magnitude of the benefit here is difficult to interpret because 55% of the patients [were] still on treatment” in the interim analysis, but the difference “is substantial enough for us to have confidence.”

Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were 60.6% in the placebo group and 67% with pembrolizumab, with anemia, nausea, and diarrhea the most common.

Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 1.1% of placebo and 4.2% of pembrolizumab subjects; hypothyroidism was the most common with pembrolizumab.

Protocol amendments in the trial included a change from PFS assessment by blinded, independent, central review to investigator assessment.

In the press release, Dr. Monk, said the results “demonstrate that, by moving an immunotherapy regimen to earlier stages of cervical cancer, we have the potential to improve outcomes for these patients compared to the current standard of care.”

The study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. Investigators reported wide-ranging ties to the company, including Dr. Lorusso, who reported honoraria from Merck as well as ties to other companies. Dr. Monk also had deep industry ties, including being a speaker and consultant for Merck and reporting honoraria from the company.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary node staging in early breast cancer, but previous studies have shown that removal of axillary lymph nodes has no therapeutic effect.

The finding raises a question: Is SLNB even necessary when preoperative axillary imaging is negative?

A new randomized trial addresses the question and brings much “welcome clarity” to the issue, Seema Khan, MD, a surgical oncologist and breast cancer researcher at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an editorial to the trial, both of which were published in JAMA Oncology.

In short, European investigators found that it’s safe to skip SLNBs in women with breast cancers no larger than 2 cm if preoperative ultrasounds of the axilla show no evidence of nodal disease.

At a median of follow-up of 5.7 years, distant disease-free survival and other outcomes were essentially equivalent between 708 women randomized to SLNB followed by full axillary dissection if nodes are positive and 697 other women randomized to observation without SLNB.

Adjuvant therapies were not significantly different between the two groups largely because adjuvant decisions were driven by tumor characteristics, not axillary studies.

The results support “the argument that sentinel node positivity is not, in and of itself, a critical parameter that determines therapeutic plans and outcomes in patients with stage I breast cancer. This is a major accomplishment of the SOUND [Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound] trial, which will be strengthened when longer-term data become available” at 10-year follow up, Dr. Khan said.

Investigators led by Oreste Davide Gentilini, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at San Raffaele Scientific and Research Hospital, Milan, estimated that, of the 2.3 million breast cancers diagnosed globally each year, the study suggests “that approximately 500,000 patients might be able to take advantage of the total omission of axillary surgery,” sparing women lymphedema and other serious side effects and saving health care systems substantial dollars.
 

A case-by-case decision

The study included women of all ages, with a median age of 60 years.

Subjects had a single tumor 0.8-1.5 cm across with negative preoperative axillary ultrasonography. Almost 90% had estrogen receptor ERBB2 (formerly HER2) positive tumors. Almost all of the subjects had radiotherapy, and about 20% of women in each arm also had chemotherapy.

The trial was conducted in 18 sites, most in Italy with other sites in Switzerland, Spain, and Chile.

Overall, 13.7% of women in the SLNB group turned out to have positive axillary nodes, with 0.6% having four or more positive nodes.

However, it didn’t seem to make a difference in the overall study results.

Five-year distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98% in the observation arm (P for noninferiority = .02).

Secondary outcomes were also essentially identical, including local/regional relapse (1.7% with SLNB versus 1.6% without); distant metastases (1.8% vs. 2%), and death from breast cancer (1% vs. 0.6%). The cumulative incidence of axillary lymph node recurrences in the observation arm was just 0.4%.

“These findings suggest that patients with BC of a diameter equal to or smaller than 2 cm and a negative result on preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasonography can be safely spared any axillary surgery whenever the lack of pathological information does not affect the postoperative treatment plan,” Dr. Gentilini and associates concluded.

The team cautioned that decision to forgo SLNB must be made on a case-by-case basis in a multidisciplinary setting because there are still situations where nodal pathology is relevant, for instance when deciding to add chemotherapy to endocrine treatments in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive disease.

Only about 20% of the subjects were under 50 years old and the team didn’t break down their results by age, which makes it difficult to apply their results to the situation.

The work was funded by the European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Khan didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Gentilini reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BD, Eli Lilly, and MSD. Two other investigators also reported personal fees from those and/or other companies.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary node staging in early breast cancer, but previous studies have shown that removal of axillary lymph nodes has no therapeutic effect.

The finding raises a question: Is SLNB even necessary when preoperative axillary imaging is negative?

A new randomized trial addresses the question and brings much “welcome clarity” to the issue, Seema Khan, MD, a surgical oncologist and breast cancer researcher at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an editorial to the trial, both of which were published in JAMA Oncology.

In short, European investigators found that it’s safe to skip SLNBs in women with breast cancers no larger than 2 cm if preoperative ultrasounds of the axilla show no evidence of nodal disease.

At a median of follow-up of 5.7 years, distant disease-free survival and other outcomes were essentially equivalent between 708 women randomized to SLNB followed by full axillary dissection if nodes are positive and 697 other women randomized to observation without SLNB.

Adjuvant therapies were not significantly different between the two groups largely because adjuvant decisions were driven by tumor characteristics, not axillary studies.

The results support “the argument that sentinel node positivity is not, in and of itself, a critical parameter that determines therapeutic plans and outcomes in patients with stage I breast cancer. This is a major accomplishment of the SOUND [Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound] trial, which will be strengthened when longer-term data become available” at 10-year follow up, Dr. Khan said.

Investigators led by Oreste Davide Gentilini, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at San Raffaele Scientific and Research Hospital, Milan, estimated that, of the 2.3 million breast cancers diagnosed globally each year, the study suggests “that approximately 500,000 patients might be able to take advantage of the total omission of axillary surgery,” sparing women lymphedema and other serious side effects and saving health care systems substantial dollars.
 

A case-by-case decision

The study included women of all ages, with a median age of 60 years.

Subjects had a single tumor 0.8-1.5 cm across with negative preoperative axillary ultrasonography. Almost 90% had estrogen receptor ERBB2 (formerly HER2) positive tumors. Almost all of the subjects had radiotherapy, and about 20% of women in each arm also had chemotherapy.

The trial was conducted in 18 sites, most in Italy with other sites in Switzerland, Spain, and Chile.

Overall, 13.7% of women in the SLNB group turned out to have positive axillary nodes, with 0.6% having four or more positive nodes.

However, it didn’t seem to make a difference in the overall study results.

Five-year distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98% in the observation arm (P for noninferiority = .02).

Secondary outcomes were also essentially identical, including local/regional relapse (1.7% with SLNB versus 1.6% without); distant metastases (1.8% vs. 2%), and death from breast cancer (1% vs. 0.6%). The cumulative incidence of axillary lymph node recurrences in the observation arm was just 0.4%.

“These findings suggest that patients with BC of a diameter equal to or smaller than 2 cm and a negative result on preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasonography can be safely spared any axillary surgery whenever the lack of pathological information does not affect the postoperative treatment plan,” Dr. Gentilini and associates concluded.

The team cautioned that decision to forgo SLNB must be made on a case-by-case basis in a multidisciplinary setting because there are still situations where nodal pathology is relevant, for instance when deciding to add chemotherapy to endocrine treatments in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive disease.

Only about 20% of the subjects were under 50 years old and the team didn’t break down their results by age, which makes it difficult to apply their results to the situation.

The work was funded by the European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Khan didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Gentilini reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BD, Eli Lilly, and MSD. Two other investigators also reported personal fees from those and/or other companies.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary node staging in early breast cancer, but previous studies have shown that removal of axillary lymph nodes has no therapeutic effect.

The finding raises a question: Is SLNB even necessary when preoperative axillary imaging is negative?

A new randomized trial addresses the question and brings much “welcome clarity” to the issue, Seema Khan, MD, a surgical oncologist and breast cancer researcher at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an editorial to the trial, both of which were published in JAMA Oncology.

In short, European investigators found that it’s safe to skip SLNBs in women with breast cancers no larger than 2 cm if preoperative ultrasounds of the axilla show no evidence of nodal disease.

At a median of follow-up of 5.7 years, distant disease-free survival and other outcomes were essentially equivalent between 708 women randomized to SLNB followed by full axillary dissection if nodes are positive and 697 other women randomized to observation without SLNB.

Adjuvant therapies were not significantly different between the two groups largely because adjuvant decisions were driven by tumor characteristics, not axillary studies.

The results support “the argument that sentinel node positivity is not, in and of itself, a critical parameter that determines therapeutic plans and outcomes in patients with stage I breast cancer. This is a major accomplishment of the SOUND [Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound] trial, which will be strengthened when longer-term data become available” at 10-year follow up, Dr. Khan said.

Investigators led by Oreste Davide Gentilini, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at San Raffaele Scientific and Research Hospital, Milan, estimated that, of the 2.3 million breast cancers diagnosed globally each year, the study suggests “that approximately 500,000 patients might be able to take advantage of the total omission of axillary surgery,” sparing women lymphedema and other serious side effects and saving health care systems substantial dollars.
 

A case-by-case decision

The study included women of all ages, with a median age of 60 years.

Subjects had a single tumor 0.8-1.5 cm across with negative preoperative axillary ultrasonography. Almost 90% had estrogen receptor ERBB2 (formerly HER2) positive tumors. Almost all of the subjects had radiotherapy, and about 20% of women in each arm also had chemotherapy.

The trial was conducted in 18 sites, most in Italy with other sites in Switzerland, Spain, and Chile.

Overall, 13.7% of women in the SLNB group turned out to have positive axillary nodes, with 0.6% having four or more positive nodes.

However, it didn’t seem to make a difference in the overall study results.

Five-year distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98% in the observation arm (P for noninferiority = .02).

Secondary outcomes were also essentially identical, including local/regional relapse (1.7% with SLNB versus 1.6% without); distant metastases (1.8% vs. 2%), and death from breast cancer (1% vs. 0.6%). The cumulative incidence of axillary lymph node recurrences in the observation arm was just 0.4%.

“These findings suggest that patients with BC of a diameter equal to or smaller than 2 cm and a negative result on preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasonography can be safely spared any axillary surgery whenever the lack of pathological information does not affect the postoperative treatment plan,” Dr. Gentilini and associates concluded.

The team cautioned that decision to forgo SLNB must be made on a case-by-case basis in a multidisciplinary setting because there are still situations where nodal pathology is relevant, for instance when deciding to add chemotherapy to endocrine treatments in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive disease.

Only about 20% of the subjects were under 50 years old and the team didn’t break down their results by age, which makes it difficult to apply their results to the situation.

The work was funded by the European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Khan didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Gentilini reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BD, Eli Lilly, and MSD. Two other investigators also reported personal fees from those and/or other companies.

A debate in Houston at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology tackled a vexing issue in hematology: Should smoldering myeloma be treated?

Hematologist Sagar Lonial, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist and researcher at Emory University, Atlanta, argued for treatment. Hematologist Angela Dispenzieri, MD, also a myeloma researcher and specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the opposing side, arguing for watchful waiting.

The two experts based their arguments largely on the same two studies, the only randomized trials to tackle the issue to date. While Dr. Dispenzieri focused on their shortcomings, Dr. Lonial focused on their strengths.

In a poll after the debate, about a third of audience members agreed that watchful waiting is the way to go, but about two-thirds favored a personalized approach to smoldering myeloma treatment based on patient risk.

“I’m taking this as a win,” Dr. Lonial said.

Different interpretations of two trials

The first of the two trials recruited from 2007 to 2010 and was conducted in Spain and Portugal. Fifty-seven high-risk patients were randomized to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Len-Dex) for up to 2 years; 62 others were randomized to observation.

At 3 years, 70% of observed patients had progressed to multiple myeloma versus only 20% in the Len-Dex group; 82% of Len-Dex patients were alive at data cut-off in 2015 versus 64% of observation patients.

The second, more recent trial, which was led by Dr. Lonial, randomized 92 intermediate or high-risk smoldering myeloma patients to lenalidomide alone for a median of 2 years and 90 others to observation. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in the treatment arm versus 66% with observation. Overall survival data have not yet been reported.

Dr. Dispenzieri acknowledged that the results from Spain and Portugal are impressive. “Treating with Len-Dex gives you a far superior freedom from progression. ... Overall survival was better too.” Results for Len-Dex were “fantastic,” she said.

However, the trial was done before myeloma-defining event criteria existed, so it’s very likely that the treatment arm in the Spanish study included actual myeloma cases, she said.

About 46% of treated patients in Dr. Lonial’s study met the current definition for high risk for progression based on the 2-20-20 rule, which Dr. Dispenzieri helped develop. Although there was an improvement in PFS in the high-risk group, there was no significant improvement for intermediate- and low-risk subjects. Also, more than 80% of observed patients hadn’t progressed by 2 years, and overall survival data are missing.

Meanwhile, treated patients in both trials had more adverse events, including secondary malignancies, and there’s the possibility that early treatment may make patients resistant to treatment later on when they progress to multiple myeloma, although that didn’t seem to happen in the Spanish trial.

“Of course, we want to prevent morbidity, of course we would love to cure the disease,” but “should we treat high-risk smoldering myeloma patients based on overall survival data from a trial of” just 119 “patients that may have been contaminated with actual myeloma” cases? Is it ethical to treat low- and intermediate-risk patients who have only a 50% chance of developing myeloma after 10 years?”

Her answer to both questions was “no and no. ... There’s just a lot of work to be done” to better understand the condition and when and how to intervene. In the meantime, “don’t treat smoldering melanoma patients” outside of a trial, she said.

“First, do no harm,” Dr. Dispenzieri cautioned in her final slide.

Dr. Lonial said he agreed with many of Dr. Dispenzieri’s points, but disagreed with her conclusion not to treat.

“Everybody can always be critical of randomized trials, but at the end of the day, we now have two randomized phase 3 trials comparing early intervention with no intervention demonstrating a significant delay in developing myeloma. I think it’s time to end the ‘we need more data; we need more trials.’ It’s time for us to take a stand.”

He argued for 2 years of lenalidomide for patients who meet the 2-20-20 high-risk definition, based on the median time people were treated in his trial.

He said he discusses the option “with every smoldering patient [who] walks in to see me” if they aren’t eligible for a trial.

Dr. Lonial mentioned his team is currently pulling together longer-term survival data for their trial.

A debate in Houston at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology tackled a vexing issue in hematology: Should smoldering myeloma be treated?

Hematologist Sagar Lonial, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist and researcher at Emory University, Atlanta, argued for treatment. Hematologist Angela Dispenzieri, MD, also a myeloma researcher and specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the opposing side, arguing for watchful waiting.

The two experts based their arguments largely on the same two studies, the only randomized trials to tackle the issue to date. While Dr. Dispenzieri focused on their shortcomings, Dr. Lonial focused on their strengths.

In a poll after the debate, about a third of audience members agreed that watchful waiting is the way to go, but about two-thirds favored a personalized approach to smoldering myeloma treatment based on patient risk.

“I’m taking this as a win,” Dr. Lonial said.

Different interpretations of two trials

The first of the two trials recruited from 2007 to 2010 and was conducted in Spain and Portugal. Fifty-seven high-risk patients were randomized to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Len-Dex) for up to 2 years; 62 others were randomized to observation.

At 3 years, 70% of observed patients had progressed to multiple myeloma versus only 20% in the Len-Dex group; 82% of Len-Dex patients were alive at data cut-off in 2015 versus 64% of observation patients.

The second, more recent trial, which was led by Dr. Lonial, randomized 92 intermediate or high-risk smoldering myeloma patients to lenalidomide alone for a median of 2 years and 90 others to observation. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in the treatment arm versus 66% with observation. Overall survival data have not yet been reported.

Dr. Dispenzieri acknowledged that the results from Spain and Portugal are impressive. “Treating with Len-Dex gives you a far superior freedom from progression. ... Overall survival was better too.” Results for Len-Dex were “fantastic,” she said.

However, the trial was done before myeloma-defining event criteria existed, so it’s very likely that the treatment arm in the Spanish study included actual myeloma cases, she said.

About 46% of treated patients in Dr. Lonial’s study met the current definition for high risk for progression based on the 2-20-20 rule, which Dr. Dispenzieri helped develop. Although there was an improvement in PFS in the high-risk group, there was no significant improvement for intermediate- and low-risk subjects. Also, more than 80% of observed patients hadn’t progressed by 2 years, and overall survival data are missing.

Meanwhile, treated patients in both trials had more adverse events, including secondary malignancies, and there’s the possibility that early treatment may make patients resistant to treatment later on when they progress to multiple myeloma, although that didn’t seem to happen in the Spanish trial.

“Of course, we want to prevent morbidity, of course we would love to cure the disease,” but “should we treat high-risk smoldering myeloma patients based on overall survival data from a trial of” just 119 “patients that may have been contaminated with actual myeloma” cases? Is it ethical to treat low- and intermediate-risk patients who have only a 50% chance of developing myeloma after 10 years?”

Her answer to both questions was “no and no. ... There’s just a lot of work to be done” to better understand the condition and when and how to intervene. In the meantime, “don’t treat smoldering melanoma patients” outside of a trial, she said.

“First, do no harm,” Dr. Dispenzieri cautioned in her final slide.

Dr. Lonial said he agreed with many of Dr. Dispenzieri’s points, but disagreed with her conclusion not to treat.

“Everybody can always be critical of randomized trials, but at the end of the day, we now have two randomized phase 3 trials comparing early intervention with no intervention demonstrating a significant delay in developing myeloma. I think it’s time to end the ‘we need more data; we need more trials.’ It’s time for us to take a stand.”

He argued for 2 years of lenalidomide for patients who meet the 2-20-20 high-risk definition, based on the median time people were treated in his trial.

He said he discusses the option “with every smoldering patient [who] walks in to see me” if they aren’t eligible for a trial.

Dr. Lonial mentioned his team is currently pulling together longer-term survival data for their trial.

A debate in Houston at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology tackled a vexing issue in hematology: Should smoldering myeloma be treated?

Hematologist Sagar Lonial, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist and researcher at Emory University, Atlanta, argued for treatment. Hematologist Angela Dispenzieri, MD, also a myeloma researcher and specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the opposing side, arguing for watchful waiting.

The two experts based their arguments largely on the same two studies, the only randomized trials to tackle the issue to date. While Dr. Dispenzieri focused on their shortcomings, Dr. Lonial focused on their strengths.

In a poll after the debate, about a third of audience members agreed that watchful waiting is the way to go, but about two-thirds favored a personalized approach to smoldering myeloma treatment based on patient risk.

“I’m taking this as a win,” Dr. Lonial said.

Different interpretations of two trials

The first of the two trials recruited from 2007 to 2010 and was conducted in Spain and Portugal. Fifty-seven high-risk patients were randomized to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Len-Dex) for up to 2 years; 62 others were randomized to observation.

At 3 years, 70% of observed patients had progressed to multiple myeloma versus only 20% in the Len-Dex group; 82% of Len-Dex patients were alive at data cut-off in 2015 versus 64% of observation patients.

The second, more recent trial, which was led by Dr. Lonial, randomized 92 intermediate or high-risk smoldering myeloma patients to lenalidomide alone for a median of 2 years and 90 others to observation. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in the treatment arm versus 66% with observation. Overall survival data have not yet been reported.

Dr. Dispenzieri acknowledged that the results from Spain and Portugal are impressive. “Treating with Len-Dex gives you a far superior freedom from progression. ... Overall survival was better too.” Results for Len-Dex were “fantastic,” she said.

However, the trial was done before myeloma-defining event criteria existed, so it’s very likely that the treatment arm in the Spanish study included actual myeloma cases, she said.

About 46% of treated patients in Dr. Lonial’s study met the current definition for high risk for progression based on the 2-20-20 rule, which Dr. Dispenzieri helped develop. Although there was an improvement in PFS in the high-risk group, there was no significant improvement for intermediate- and low-risk subjects. Also, more than 80% of observed patients hadn’t progressed by 2 years, and overall survival data are missing.

Meanwhile, treated patients in both trials had more adverse events, including secondary malignancies, and there’s the possibility that early treatment may make patients resistant to treatment later on when they progress to multiple myeloma, although that didn’t seem to happen in the Spanish trial.

“Of course, we want to prevent morbidity, of course we would love to cure the disease,” but “should we treat high-risk smoldering myeloma patients based on overall survival data from a trial of” just 119 “patients that may have been contaminated with actual myeloma” cases? Is it ethical to treat low- and intermediate-risk patients who have only a 50% chance of developing myeloma after 10 years?”

Her answer to both questions was “no and no. ... There’s just a lot of work to be done” to better understand the condition and when and how to intervene. In the meantime, “don’t treat smoldering melanoma patients” outside of a trial, she said.

“First, do no harm,” Dr. Dispenzieri cautioned in her final slide.

Dr. Lonial said he agreed with many of Dr. Dispenzieri’s points, but disagreed with her conclusion not to treat.

“Everybody can always be critical of randomized trials, but at the end of the day, we now have two randomized phase 3 trials comparing early intervention with no intervention demonstrating a significant delay in developing myeloma. I think it’s time to end the ‘we need more data; we need more trials.’ It’s time for us to take a stand.”

He argued for 2 years of lenalidomide for patients who meet the 2-20-20 high-risk definition, based on the median time people were treated in his trial.

He said he discusses the option “with every smoldering patient [who] walks in to see me” if they aren’t eligible for a trial.

Dr. Lonial mentioned his team is currently pulling together longer-term survival data for their trial.

Despite a growing list of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, ruxolitinib remains the go-to for patients with symptomatic, higher risk myelofibrosis, according to Anthony M. Hunter, MD, a myeloid malignancies specialist at Emory University, Atlanta.

“We are thankfully starting to be blessed with more options than we’ve ever had,” he said, but “in the front-line proliferative setting, ruxolitinib has remained the standard of care.” It’s “well established in higher-risk patients and very much an option for very symptomatic lower-risk patients.”

Dr. Hunter helped his colleagues navigate the evolving field of JAK inhibition for myelofibrosis in a presentation titled “Choosing and Properly Using a JAK Inhibitor in Myelofibrosis,”at the Society of Hematologic Oncology annual meeting.

Ruxolitinib was the first JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis on the U.S. market, approved in 2011. Two more have followed, fedratinib in 2019 and pacritinib in 2022.

A fourth JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis, momelotinib, is under Food and Drug Administration review with a decision expected shortly.

JAK inhibitors disrupt a key pathogenic pathway in myelofibrosis and are a mainstay of treatment, but Dr. Hunter noted that they should not replace allogeneic transplants in patients who are candidates because transplants remain “the best way to achieve long term survival, especially in higher risk patients.”

He noted that not every patient needs a JAK inhibitor, especially “lower-risk, more asymptomatic patients who are predominantly manifesting with cytopenias. [They] are less likely to benefit.”

Dr. Hunter said that although ruxolitinib remains a treatment of choice, fedratinib “is certainly an option” with comparable rates of symptom control and splenomegaly reduction. Also, while ruxolitinib is dosed according to platelet levels, fedratinib allows for full dosing down to a platelet count of 50 x 10⁹/L.

“But there’s more GI toxicity than with ruxolitinib, especially in the first couple of months,” he said, as well as a black box warning of Wernicke’s encephalopathy. “I generally put all my [fedratinib] patients on thiamine repletion as a precaution.”

One of the most challenging aspects of using JAK inhibitors for myelofibrosis is their tendency to cause cytopenia, particularly anemia and thrombocytopenia, which, ironically, are also hallmarks of myelofibrosis itself.

Although there’s an alternative low-dose ruxolitinib regimen that can be effective in anemic settings, the approval of pacritinib and most likely momelotinib is particularly helpful for cytopenic patients, “a population which historically has been very hard to treat with our prior agents,” Dr. Hunter said.

Pacritinib is approved specifically for patients with platelet counts below 50 x 10⁹/L; momelotinib also included lower platelet counts in several studies. Both agents indirectly boost erythropoiesis with subsequent amelioration of anemia.

“Momelotinib is an important emerging agent for these more anemic patients,” with a spleen response comparable to ruxolitinib and significantly higher rates of transfusion independence, but with lower rates of symptom control, Dr. Hunter said.

Pacritinib “really helps extend the benefit of JAK inhibitors to a group of thrombocytopenic patients who have been hard to treat with ruxolitinib,” with the added potential of improving anemia, although, like fedratinib, it has more GI toxicity, he said.

There are multiple add-on options for JAK inhibitor patients with anemia, including luspatercept, an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent approved for anemia in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes; promising results were reported recently for myelofibrosis.

Fedratinib, pacritinib, and momelotinib all have activity in the second line after ruxolitinib failure, Dr. Hunter noted, but he cautioned that ruxolitinib must be tapered over a few weeks, not stopped abruptly, to avoid withdrawal symptoms. Some clinicians overlap JAK inhibitors a day or two to avoid issues.

“Clinical trials should still be considered in many of these settings,” he said, adding that emerging agents are under development, including multiple combination therapies, often with JAK inhibitors as the background.

No disclosure information was reported.

Despite a growing list of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, ruxolitinib remains the go-to for patients with symptomatic, higher risk myelofibrosis, according to Anthony M. Hunter, MD, a myeloid malignancies specialist at Emory University, Atlanta.

“We are thankfully starting to be blessed with more options than we’ve ever had,” he said, but “in the front-line proliferative setting, ruxolitinib has remained the standard of care.” It’s “well established in higher-risk patients and very much an option for very symptomatic lower-risk patients.”

Dr. Hunter helped his colleagues navigate the evolving field of JAK inhibition for myelofibrosis in a presentation titled “Choosing and Properly Using a JAK Inhibitor in Myelofibrosis,”at the Society of Hematologic Oncology annual meeting.

Ruxolitinib was the first JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis on the U.S. market, approved in 2011. Two more have followed, fedratinib in 2019 and pacritinib in 2022.

A fourth JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis, momelotinib, is under Food and Drug Administration review with a decision expected shortly.

JAK inhibitors disrupt a key pathogenic pathway in myelofibrosis and are a mainstay of treatment, but Dr. Hunter noted that they should not replace allogeneic transplants in patients who are candidates because transplants remain “the best way to achieve long term survival, especially in higher risk patients.”

He noted that not every patient needs a JAK inhibitor, especially “lower-risk, more asymptomatic patients who are predominantly manifesting with cytopenias. [They] are less likely to benefit.”

Dr. Hunter said that although ruxolitinib remains a treatment of choice, fedratinib “is certainly an option” with comparable rates of symptom control and splenomegaly reduction. Also, while ruxolitinib is dosed according to platelet levels, fedratinib allows for full dosing down to a platelet count of 50 x 10⁹/L.

“But there’s more GI toxicity than with ruxolitinib, especially in the first couple of months,” he said, as well as a black box warning of Wernicke’s encephalopathy. “I generally put all my [fedratinib] patients on thiamine repletion as a precaution.”

One of the most challenging aspects of using JAK inhibitors for myelofibrosis is their tendency to cause cytopenia, particularly anemia and thrombocytopenia, which, ironically, are also hallmarks of myelofibrosis itself.

Although there’s an alternative low-dose ruxolitinib regimen that can be effective in anemic settings, the approval of pacritinib and most likely momelotinib is particularly helpful for cytopenic patients, “a population which historically has been very hard to treat with our prior agents,” Dr. Hunter said.

Pacritinib is approved specifically for patients with platelet counts below 50 x 10⁹/L; momelotinib also included lower platelet counts in several studies. Both agents indirectly boost erythropoiesis with subsequent amelioration of anemia.

“Momelotinib is an important emerging agent for these more anemic patients,” with a spleen response comparable to ruxolitinib and significantly higher rates of transfusion independence, but with lower rates of symptom control, Dr. Hunter said.

Pacritinib “really helps extend the benefit of JAK inhibitors to a group of thrombocytopenic patients who have been hard to treat with ruxolitinib,” with the added potential of improving anemia, although, like fedratinib, it has more GI toxicity, he said.

There are multiple add-on options for JAK inhibitor patients with anemia, including luspatercept, an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent approved for anemia in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes; promising results were reported recently for myelofibrosis.

Fedratinib, pacritinib, and momelotinib all have activity in the second line after ruxolitinib failure, Dr. Hunter noted, but he cautioned that ruxolitinib must be tapered over a few weeks, not stopped abruptly, to avoid withdrawal symptoms. Some clinicians overlap JAK inhibitors a day or two to avoid issues.

“Clinical trials should still be considered in many of these settings,” he said, adding that emerging agents are under development, including multiple combination therapies, often with JAK inhibitors as the background.

No disclosure information was reported.

Despite a growing list of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, ruxolitinib remains the go-to for patients with symptomatic, higher risk myelofibrosis, according to Anthony M. Hunter, MD, a myeloid malignancies specialist at Emory University, Atlanta.

“We are thankfully starting to be blessed with more options than we’ve ever had,” he said, but “in the front-line proliferative setting, ruxolitinib has remained the standard of care.” It’s “well established in higher-risk patients and very much an option for very symptomatic lower-risk patients.”

Dr. Hunter helped his colleagues navigate the evolving field of JAK inhibition for myelofibrosis in a presentation titled “Choosing and Properly Using a JAK Inhibitor in Myelofibrosis,”at the Society of Hematologic Oncology annual meeting.

Ruxolitinib was the first JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis on the U.S. market, approved in 2011. Two more have followed, fedratinib in 2019 and pacritinib in 2022.

A fourth JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis, momelotinib, is under Food and Drug Administration review with a decision expected shortly.

JAK inhibitors disrupt a key pathogenic pathway in myelofibrosis and are a mainstay of treatment, but Dr. Hunter noted that they should not replace allogeneic transplants in patients who are candidates because transplants remain “the best way to achieve long term survival, especially in higher risk patients.”

He noted that not every patient needs a JAK inhibitor, especially “lower-risk, more asymptomatic patients who are predominantly manifesting with cytopenias. [They] are less likely to benefit.”

Dr. Hunter said that although ruxolitinib remains a treatment of choice, fedratinib “is certainly an option” with comparable rates of symptom control and splenomegaly reduction. Also, while ruxolitinib is dosed according to platelet levels, fedratinib allows for full dosing down to a platelet count of 50 x 10⁹/L.

“But there’s more GI toxicity than with ruxolitinib, especially in the first couple of months,” he said, as well as a black box warning of Wernicke’s encephalopathy. “I generally put all my [fedratinib] patients on thiamine repletion as a precaution.”

One of the most challenging aspects of using JAK inhibitors for myelofibrosis is their tendency to cause cytopenia, particularly anemia and thrombocytopenia, which, ironically, are also hallmarks of myelofibrosis itself.

Although there’s an alternative low-dose ruxolitinib regimen that can be effective in anemic settings, the approval of pacritinib and most likely momelotinib is particularly helpful for cytopenic patients, “a population which historically has been very hard to treat with our prior agents,” Dr. Hunter said.

Pacritinib is approved specifically for patients with platelet counts below 50 x 10⁹/L; momelotinib also included lower platelet counts in several studies. Both agents indirectly boost erythropoiesis with subsequent amelioration of anemia.

“Momelotinib is an important emerging agent for these more anemic patients,” with a spleen response comparable to ruxolitinib and significantly higher rates of transfusion independence, but with lower rates of symptom control, Dr. Hunter said.

Pacritinib “really helps extend the benefit of JAK inhibitors to a group of thrombocytopenic patients who have been hard to treat with ruxolitinib,” with the added potential of improving anemia, although, like fedratinib, it has more GI toxicity, he said.

There are multiple add-on options for JAK inhibitor patients with anemia, including luspatercept, an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent approved for anemia in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes; promising results were reported recently for myelofibrosis.

Fedratinib, pacritinib, and momelotinib all have activity in the second line after ruxolitinib failure, Dr. Hunter noted, but he cautioned that ruxolitinib must be tapered over a few weeks, not stopped abruptly, to avoid withdrawal symptoms. Some clinicians overlap JAK inhibitors a day or two to avoid issues.

“Clinical trials should still be considered in many of these settings,” he said, adding that emerging agents are under development, including multiple combination therapies, often with JAK inhibitors as the background.

No disclosure information was reported.

With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), the era of double reading of mammograms is likely coming to a close, according to Liane Philpotts, MD, a radiology and biomedical imaging professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The reason is because AI is proving to be as good as humans in interpreting mammograms, at least in the research setting.

In one of the latest reports, published online in Radiology, British investigators found that the performance of a commercially available AI system (INSIGHT MMG version 1.1.7.1 – Lunit) was essentially equivalent to over 500 specialized readers. The results are in line with other recent AI studies.

Double reading – having mammograms read by two clinicians to increase cancer detection rates – is common in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe.

The British team compared the performance of 552 readers with Lunit’s AI program on the Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening exam, a quality assurance test which mammogram readers in the United Kingdom are required to take twice a year. Readers assign a malignancy score to 60 challenging cases, a mix of normal breasts and breasts with benign and cancerous lesions. The study included two test sessions for a total of 120 breast screenings.

Fifty-seven percent of the readers in the study were board-certified radiologists, 37% were radiographers, and 6% were breast clinicians. Each read at least 5,000 mammograms a year.

There was no difference in overall performance between the AI program and the human readers (AUC 0.93 vs. 0.88, P = .15).

Commenting in an editorial published with the investigation, Dr. Philpotts said the results “suggest that AI could confidently act as a second reader to decrease workloads.”

As for the United States, where double reading is generally not done, she pointed out that “many U.S. radiologists interpreting mammograms are nonspecialized and do not read high volumes of mammograms. Thus, the AI system evaluated in the study “could be used as a supplemental tool to aid the performance of readers in the United States or in other countries where screening programs use a single reading.”

There was also no difference in sensitivity between AI and human readers (84% vs. 90%, P = .34), but the AI algorithm had a higher specificity (89% vs. 76%, P = .003).

Using AI recall scores that matched the average human reader performance (90% sensitivity, 76% specificity), there was no difference with AI in regard to sensitivity (91%, P = .73) or specificity (77%, P = .85), but the investigators noted the power of the analysis was limited.

Overall, “diagnostic performance of AI was comparable with that of the average human reader.” It seems “increasingly likely that AI will eventually play a part in the interpretation of screening mammograms,” said investigators led by Yan Chen, PhD, of the Nottingham Breast Institute in England.

“That the AI system was able to match the performance of the average reader in this specialized group of mammogram readers indicates the robustness of this AI algorithm,” Dr. Philpotts said.

However, there are some caveats.

For one, the system was designed for 2D mammography, the current standard of care in the United Kingdom, while digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing 2D mammography in the United States.

In the United States, “AI algorithms specific to DBT are necessary and will need to be reliable and reproducible to be embraced by radiologists,” Dr. Philpotts said.

Also in the United Kingdom, screening is performed at 3-year intervals in women aged 50-70 years old, which means that the study population was enriched for older women with less-dense breasts. Screening generally starts earlier in the United States and includes premenopausal women with denser breasts.

A recent study from Korea, where many women have dense breasts, found that 2D mammography and supplementary ultrasound outperformed AI for cancer detection.

“This underscores the challenges of finding cancers in dense breasts, which plague both radiologists and AI alike, and provides evidence that breast density is an important factor to consider when evaluating AI performance,” Dr. Philpotts said.

The work was funded by Lunit, the maker of the AI program used in the study. The investigators and Dr. Philpotts had no disclosures.

With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), the era of double reading of mammograms is likely coming to a close, according to Liane Philpotts, MD, a radiology and biomedical imaging professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The reason is because AI is proving to be as good as humans in interpreting mammograms, at least in the research setting.

In one of the latest reports, published online in Radiology, British investigators found that the performance of a commercially available AI system (INSIGHT MMG version 1.1.7.1 – Lunit) was essentially equivalent to over 500 specialized readers. The results are in line with other recent AI studies.

Double reading – having mammograms read by two clinicians to increase cancer detection rates – is common in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe.

The British team compared the performance of 552 readers with Lunit’s AI program on the Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening exam, a quality assurance test which mammogram readers in the United Kingdom are required to take twice a year. Readers assign a malignancy score to 60 challenging cases, a mix of normal breasts and breasts with benign and cancerous lesions. The study included two test sessions for a total of 120 breast screenings.

Fifty-seven percent of the readers in the study were board-certified radiologists, 37% were radiographers, and 6% were breast clinicians. Each read at least 5,000 mammograms a year.

There was no difference in overall performance between the AI program and the human readers (AUC 0.93 vs. 0.88, P = .15).

Commenting in an editorial published with the investigation, Dr. Philpotts said the results “suggest that AI could confidently act as a second reader to decrease workloads.”

As for the United States, where double reading is generally not done, she pointed out that “many U.S. radiologists interpreting mammograms are nonspecialized and do not read high volumes of mammograms. Thus, the AI system evaluated in the study “could be used as a supplemental tool to aid the performance of readers in the United States or in other countries where screening programs use a single reading.”

There was also no difference in sensitivity between AI and human readers (84% vs. 90%, P = .34), but the AI algorithm had a higher specificity (89% vs. 76%, P = .003).

Using AI recall scores that matched the average human reader performance (90% sensitivity, 76% specificity), there was no difference with AI in regard to sensitivity (91%, P = .73) or specificity (77%, P = .85), but the investigators noted the power of the analysis was limited.

Overall, “diagnostic performance of AI was comparable with that of the average human reader.” It seems “increasingly likely that AI will eventually play a part in the interpretation of screening mammograms,” said investigators led by Yan Chen, PhD, of the Nottingham Breast Institute in England.

“That the AI system was able to match the performance of the average reader in this specialized group of mammogram readers indicates the robustness of this AI algorithm,” Dr. Philpotts said.

However, there are some caveats.

For one, the system was designed for 2D mammography, the current standard of care in the United Kingdom, while digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing 2D mammography in the United States.

In the United States, “AI algorithms specific to DBT are necessary and will need to be reliable and reproducible to be embraced by radiologists,” Dr. Philpotts said.

Also in the United Kingdom, screening is performed at 3-year intervals in women aged 50-70 years old, which means that the study population was enriched for older women with less-dense breasts. Screening generally starts earlier in the United States and includes premenopausal women with denser breasts.

A recent study from Korea, where many women have dense breasts, found that 2D mammography and supplementary ultrasound outperformed AI for cancer detection.

“This underscores the challenges of finding cancers in dense breasts, which plague both radiologists and AI alike, and provides evidence that breast density is an important factor to consider when evaluating AI performance,” Dr. Philpotts said.

The work was funded by Lunit, the maker of the AI program used in the study. The investigators and Dr. Philpotts had no disclosures.

With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), the era of double reading of mammograms is likely coming to a close, according to Liane Philpotts, MD, a radiology and biomedical imaging professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The reason is because AI is proving to be as good as humans in interpreting mammograms, at least in the research setting.

In one of the latest reports, published online in Radiology, British investigators found that the performance of a commercially available AI system (INSIGHT MMG version 1.1.7.1 – Lunit) was essentially equivalent to over 500 specialized readers. The results are in line with other recent AI studies.

Double reading – having mammograms read by two clinicians to increase cancer detection rates – is common in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe.

The British team compared the performance of 552 readers with Lunit’s AI program on the Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening exam, a quality assurance test which mammogram readers in the United Kingdom are required to take twice a year. Readers assign a malignancy score to 60 challenging cases, a mix of normal breasts and breasts with benign and cancerous lesions. The study included two test sessions for a total of 120 breast screenings.

Fifty-seven percent of the readers in the study were board-certified radiologists, 37% were radiographers, and 6% were breast clinicians. Each read at least 5,000 mammograms a year.

There was no difference in overall performance between the AI program and the human readers (AUC 0.93 vs. 0.88, P = .15).

Commenting in an editorial published with the investigation, Dr. Philpotts said the results “suggest that AI could confidently act as a second reader to decrease workloads.”

As for the United States, where double reading is generally not done, she pointed out that “many U.S. radiologists interpreting mammograms are nonspecialized and do not read high volumes of mammograms. Thus, the AI system evaluated in the study “could be used as a supplemental tool to aid the performance of readers in the United States or in other countries where screening programs use a single reading.”

There was also no difference in sensitivity between AI and human readers (84% vs. 90%, P = .34), but the AI algorithm had a higher specificity (89% vs. 76%, P = .003).

Using AI recall scores that matched the average human reader performance (90% sensitivity, 76% specificity), there was no difference with AI in regard to sensitivity (91%, P = .73) or specificity (77%, P = .85), but the investigators noted the power of the analysis was limited.

Overall, “diagnostic performance of AI was comparable with that of the average human reader.” It seems “increasingly likely that AI will eventually play a part in the interpretation of screening mammograms,” said investigators led by Yan Chen, PhD, of the Nottingham Breast Institute in England.

“That the AI system was able to match the performance of the average reader in this specialized group of mammogram readers indicates the robustness of this AI algorithm,” Dr. Philpotts said.

However, there are some caveats.

For one, the system was designed for 2D mammography, the current standard of care in the United Kingdom, while digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing 2D mammography in the United States.

In the United States, “AI algorithms specific to DBT are necessary and will need to be reliable and reproducible to be embraced by radiologists,” Dr. Philpotts said.

Also in the United Kingdom, screening is performed at 3-year intervals in women aged 50-70 years old, which means that the study population was enriched for older women with less-dense breasts. Screening generally starts earlier in the United States and includes premenopausal women with denser breasts.

A recent study from Korea, where many women have dense breasts, found that 2D mammography and supplementary ultrasound outperformed AI for cancer detection.

“This underscores the challenges of finding cancers in dense breasts, which plague both radiologists and AI alike, and provides evidence that breast density is an important factor to consider when evaluating AI performance,” Dr. Philpotts said.

The work was funded by Lunit, the maker of the AI program used in the study. The investigators and Dr. Philpotts had no disclosures.

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

The latest results from the IKEMA trial, which pitted isatuximab (Sarclisa) against placebo on a background of carfilzomib and dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), confirm the benefits seen in an earlier, interim analysis that won isatuximab Food and Drug Administration approval for the indication in March 2021.

Median follow up was 44 months in the new update, about 2 additional years past the earlier report.

As in the earlier analysis, adding the anti-CD38 antibody to carfilzomib and dexamethasone brought substantial benefits, including a median progression free survival (PFS) of 35.7 months versus 19.2 months with placebo, as well as a higher rates of complete response (CR, 44.1% vs. 28.5%), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (33.5% vs. 15.4%), and MRD negativity CR (26.3% vs. 12.2%).

Although overall survival data are not yet mature, the probability of being alive at 42 months was 66.3% with isatuximab add-on versus 54.5% with placebo.

Investigators led by Thomas G. Martin, MD, director of the University of California, San Francisco, myeloma program, noted that median PFS of nearly 3 years “is the longest PFS reported to date with a PI-based regimen in the relapsed MM [multiple myeloma] setting.” The updated results further support the combination “as a standard of care treatment for patients with relapsed MM.”

Overall, the trial adds “another effective triplet in the treatment of patients with” relapsed/refractory MM, Sergio A. Giralt, MD, head of the division of hematologic malignancies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said when asked for comment. The study was published May 9 in Blood Cancer Journal.
 

Safety similar to interim analysis

IKEMA randomized 179 patients to isatuximab add-on and 123 to placebo. Patients had relapsed/refractory MM with one to three prior treatment lines. Isatuximab was dosed at10 mg/kg IV in the open-label trial, weekly in the first cycle then biweekly.

The PFS benefit held across various subgroups, including the elderly and others with poor prognoses.

In their write-up, the investigators acknowledged isatuximab’s rival anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), which is also approved in the United States for use in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory MM after one to three treatment lines.

“Although inter-trial evaluations should be interpreted with caution,” they noted that PFS in the latest analysis of daratumumab’s CANDOR trial in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone was shorter than in IKEMA, 28.6 months versus 15.2 months with placebo.

Like efficacy, safety in latest update of IKEMA was similar to that of the interim analysis. However, while there was no difference in the incidence of all-cause serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the earlier report, the incidence was higher with isatuximab than placebo in the newest findings (70.1% vs. 59.8%).

The investigators said the difference was likely because patients in the isatuximab arm stayed on treatment longer, a median of 94 weeks versus 61.9 weeks in the placebo arm, making adverse events more likely.

The most common, nonhematologic TEAEs were infusion reactions (45.8% in the isatuximab arm vs. 3.3% in the placebo group), diarrhea (39.5% vs. 32%), hypertension (37.9% vs 35.2%), upper respiratory tract infection (37.3% vs 27%), and fatigue (31.6% vs 20.5%).

Grade 3 or higher pneumonia occurred in 18.6% patients in the isatuximab arm versus 12.3% in the placebo group. The incidence of skin cancer was 6.2% with isatuximab versus 3.3%. The incidence of treatment-emergent fatal events remained similar between study arms, 5.6% with isatuximab versus 4.9% with placebo.

The study was funded by Sanofi, maker of isatuximab. Investigators included two Sanofi employees. Others reported a range of ties to the company, including Dr. Martin, who reported research funding and sitting on a Sanofi steering committee.

The latest results from the IKEMA trial, which pitted isatuximab (Sarclisa) against placebo on a background of carfilzomib and dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), confirm the benefits seen in an earlier, interim analysis that won isatuximab Food and Drug Administration approval for the indication in March 2021.

Median follow up was 44 months in the new update, about 2 additional years past the earlier report.

As in the earlier analysis, adding the anti-CD38 antibody to carfilzomib and dexamethasone brought substantial benefits, including a median progression free survival (PFS) of 35.7 months versus 19.2 months with placebo, as well as a higher rates of complete response (CR, 44.1% vs. 28.5%), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (33.5% vs. 15.4%), and MRD negativity CR (26.3% vs. 12.2%).

Although overall survival data are not yet mature, the probability of being alive at 42 months was 66.3% with isatuximab add-on versus 54.5% with placebo.

Investigators led by Thomas G. Martin, MD, director of the University of California, San Francisco, myeloma program, noted that median PFS of nearly 3 years “is the longest PFS reported to date with a PI-based regimen in the relapsed MM [multiple myeloma] setting.” The updated results further support the combination “as a standard of care treatment for patients with relapsed MM.”

Overall, the trial adds “another effective triplet in the treatment of patients with” relapsed/refractory MM, Sergio A. Giralt, MD, head of the division of hematologic malignancies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said when asked for comment. The study was published May 9 in Blood Cancer Journal.
 

Safety similar to interim analysis

IKEMA randomized 179 patients to isatuximab add-on and 123 to placebo. Patients had relapsed/refractory MM with one to three prior treatment lines. Isatuximab was dosed at10 mg/kg IV in the open-label trial, weekly in the first cycle then biweekly.

The PFS benefit held across various subgroups, including the elderly and others with poor prognoses.

In their write-up, the investigators acknowledged isatuximab’s rival anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), which is also approved in the United States for use in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory MM after one to three treatment lines.

“Although inter-trial evaluations should be interpreted with caution,” they noted that PFS in the latest analysis of daratumumab’s CANDOR trial in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone was shorter than in IKEMA, 28.6 months versus 15.2 months with placebo.

Like efficacy, safety in latest update of IKEMA was similar to that of the interim analysis. However, while there was no difference in the incidence of all-cause serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the earlier report, the incidence was higher with isatuximab than placebo in the newest findings (70.1% vs. 59.8%).

The investigators said the difference was likely because patients in the isatuximab arm stayed on treatment longer, a median of 94 weeks versus 61.9 weeks in the placebo arm, making adverse events more likely.

The most common, nonhematologic TEAEs were infusion reactions (45.8% in the isatuximab arm vs. 3.3% in the placebo group), diarrhea (39.5% vs. 32%), hypertension (37.9% vs 35.2%), upper respiratory tract infection (37.3% vs 27%), and fatigue (31.6% vs 20.5%).

Grade 3 or higher pneumonia occurred in 18.6% patients in the isatuximab arm versus 12.3% in the placebo group. The incidence of skin cancer was 6.2% with isatuximab versus 3.3%. The incidence of treatment-emergent fatal events remained similar between study arms, 5.6% with isatuximab versus 4.9% with placebo.

The study was funded by Sanofi, maker of isatuximab. Investigators included two Sanofi employees. Others reported a range of ties to the company, including Dr. Martin, who reported research funding and sitting on a Sanofi steering committee.

The latest results from the IKEMA trial, which pitted isatuximab (Sarclisa) against placebo on a background of carfilzomib and dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), confirm the benefits seen in an earlier, interim analysis that won isatuximab Food and Drug Administration approval for the indication in March 2021.

Median follow up was 44 months in the new update, about 2 additional years past the earlier report.

As in the earlier analysis, adding the anti-CD38 antibody to carfilzomib and dexamethasone brought substantial benefits, including a median progression free survival (PFS) of 35.7 months versus 19.2 months with placebo, as well as a higher rates of complete response (CR, 44.1% vs. 28.5%), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (33.5% vs. 15.4%), and MRD negativity CR (26.3% vs. 12.2%).

Although overall survival data are not yet mature, the probability of being alive at 42 months was 66.3% with isatuximab add-on versus 54.5% with placebo.

Investigators led by Thomas G. Martin, MD, director of the University of California, San Francisco, myeloma program, noted that median PFS of nearly 3 years “is the longest PFS reported to date with a PI-based regimen in the relapsed MM [multiple myeloma] setting.” The updated results further support the combination “as a standard of care treatment for patients with relapsed MM.”

Overall, the trial adds “another effective triplet in the treatment of patients with” relapsed/refractory MM, Sergio A. Giralt, MD, head of the division of hematologic malignancies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said when asked for comment. The study was published May 9 in Blood Cancer Journal.
 

Safety similar to interim analysis

IKEMA randomized 179 patients to isatuximab add-on and 123 to placebo. Patients had relapsed/refractory MM with one to three prior treatment lines. Isatuximab was dosed at10 mg/kg IV in the open-label trial, weekly in the first cycle then biweekly.

The PFS benefit held across various subgroups, including the elderly and others with poor prognoses.

In their write-up, the investigators acknowledged isatuximab’s rival anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), which is also approved in the United States for use in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory MM after one to three treatment lines.

“Although inter-trial evaluations should be interpreted with caution,” they noted that PFS in the latest analysis of daratumumab’s CANDOR trial in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone was shorter than in IKEMA, 28.6 months versus 15.2 months with placebo.

Like efficacy, safety in latest update of IKEMA was similar to that of the interim analysis. However, while there was no difference in the incidence of all-cause serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the earlier report, the incidence was higher with isatuximab than placebo in the newest findings (70.1% vs. 59.8%).

The investigators said the difference was likely because patients in the isatuximab arm stayed on treatment longer, a median of 94 weeks versus 61.9 weeks in the placebo arm, making adverse events more likely.

The most common, nonhematologic TEAEs were infusion reactions (45.8% in the isatuximab arm vs. 3.3% in the placebo group), diarrhea (39.5% vs. 32%), hypertension (37.9% vs 35.2%), upper respiratory tract infection (37.3% vs 27%), and fatigue (31.6% vs 20.5%).

Grade 3 or higher pneumonia occurred in 18.6% patients in the isatuximab arm versus 12.3% in the placebo group. The incidence of skin cancer was 6.2% with isatuximab versus 3.3%. The incidence of treatment-emergent fatal events remained similar between study arms, 5.6% with isatuximab versus 4.9% with placebo.

The study was funded by Sanofi, maker of isatuximab. Investigators included two Sanofi employees. Others reported a range of ties to the company, including Dr. Martin, who reported research funding and sitting on a Sanofi steering committee.

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

Traditionally, the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive HER2-positive breast cancer has made surgeons hesitant to offer women breast conserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy.

The concern has been that ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) doesn’t respond well to neoadjuvant treatment, so leaving it behind could increase the risk of recurrence.

A new study, however, calls that thinking into question.

In a nationwide review of over 5,000 women in the Netherlands, Dutch investigators found that neoadjuvant therapy eradicates DCIS about half of the time in women with invasive HER2-positive breast cancer.

The study is the largest look into the issue to date and confirms similar reports from a handful of smaller studies.

“These findings are important to create awareness that the presence of a DCIS component ... should not necessarily indicate the need for mastectomy,” said Roxanne Ploumen, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues.

The study was published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

The research team compared biopsy results before neoadjuvant therapy with pathology reports following surgery. DCIS had a pathologic complete response rate of 52%. Neoadjuvant therapy generally consisted of anthracyclines followed by docetaxel or paclitaxel, in combination with trastuzumab.

The study also supports the assertion that women with DCIS are less likely to have breast-conserving surgery. Patients with DCIS were more likely to get mastectomies in the study (53.6% vs. 41%; P < .001) although the exact reasons are unclear because the data didn’t capture information relevant to surgical decision-making, including patient preferences and the extent of calcifications on mammography.

The key now is to find a way to assess how well DCIS responds to neoadjuvant therapy to better guide surgical decisions. Future studies should “investigate the evaluation of DCIS response by imaging” to increase the chance of breast-conserving surgery. “Moreover, a thorough investigation of pathologic characteristics” that predict response “could be useful,” Dr. Ploumen and associates said.

The investigators did find a few correlations that might help with response prediction; complete resolution of DCIS was associated with a complete response of the primary tumor to neoadjuvant therapy as well as negative estrogen receptor status and more recent breast cancer diagnosis, likely because of recent improvements in neoadjuvant therapy, including dual anti-HER2 blockade from 2017 onward, the team said.

Asked for comment, Kathy Miller, MD, a breast medical oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, called the findings “interesting.”

“I suspect the challenge is that DCIS is often associated with microcalcifications” that don’t go away with therapy, “so it is common for [surgeons] to remove all areas” with microcalcifications. For now, “we can’t determine if the DCIS has” resolved with neoadjuvant therapy, so leaving calcifications behind “means accepting the possibility that you might be leaving residual disease behind,” she said.

The analysis included 5,598 women diagnosed with HER2-positive invasive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy and surgery between 2010 and 2020. The investigators coupled the Netherlands Cancer Registry with the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank to conduct their analysis.

About a quarter of the women had a DCIS component to their breast tumors.

The work was funded by the Jules Coenegracht Senior Foundation. Dr. Ploumen and Dr. Miller reported no conflicts of interest. Three investigators reported ties to Servier Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Novartis, and other companies.

Traditionally, the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive HER2-positive breast cancer has made surgeons hesitant to offer women breast conserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy.

The concern has been that ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) doesn’t respond well to neoadjuvant treatment, so leaving it behind could increase the risk of recurrence.

A new study, however, calls that thinking into question.

In a nationwide review of over 5,000 women in the Netherlands, Dutch investigators found that neoadjuvant therapy eradicates DCIS about half of the time in women with invasive HER2-positive breast cancer.

The study is the largest look into the issue to date and confirms similar reports from a handful of smaller studies.

“These findings are important to create awareness that the presence of a DCIS component ... should not necessarily indicate the need for mastectomy,” said Roxanne Ploumen, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues.

The study was published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

The research team compared biopsy results before neoadjuvant therapy with pathology reports following surgery. DCIS had a pathologic complete response rate of 52%. Neoadjuvant therapy generally consisted of anthracyclines followed by docetaxel or paclitaxel, in combination with trastuzumab.

The study also supports the assertion that women with DCIS are less likely to have breast-conserving surgery. Patients with DCIS were more likely to get mastectomies in the study (53.6% vs. 41%; P < .001) although the exact reasons are unclear because the data didn’t capture information relevant to surgical decision-making, including patient preferences and the extent of calcifications on mammography.

The key now is to find a way to assess how well DCIS responds to neoadjuvant therapy to better guide surgical decisions. Future studies should “investigate the evaluation of DCIS response by imaging” to increase the chance of breast-conserving surgery. “Moreover, a thorough investigation of pathologic characteristics” that predict response “could be useful,” Dr. Ploumen and associates said.

The investigators did find a few correlations that might help with response prediction; complete resolution of DCIS was associated with a complete response of the primary tumor to neoadjuvant therapy as well as negative estrogen receptor status and more recent breast cancer diagnosis, likely because of recent improvements in neoadjuvant therapy, including dual anti-HER2 blockade from 2017 onward, the team said.

Asked for comment, Kathy Miller, MD, a breast medical oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, called the findings “interesting.”

“I suspect the challenge is that DCIS is often associated with microcalcifications” that don’t go away with therapy, “so it is common for [surgeons] to remove all areas” with microcalcifications. For now, “we can’t determine if the DCIS has” resolved with neoadjuvant therapy, so leaving calcifications behind “means accepting the possibility that you might be leaving residual disease behind,” she said.

The analysis included 5,598 women diagnosed with HER2-positive invasive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy and surgery between 2010 and 2020. The investigators coupled the Netherlands Cancer Registry with the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank to conduct their analysis.

About a quarter of the women had a DCIS component to their breast tumors.

The work was funded by the Jules Coenegracht Senior Foundation. Dr. Ploumen and Dr. Miller reported no conflicts of interest. Three investigators reported ties to Servier Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Novartis, and other companies.

Traditionally, the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive HER2-positive breast cancer has made surgeons hesitant to offer women breast conserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy.

The concern has been that ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) doesn’t respond well to neoadjuvant treatment, so leaving it behind could increase the risk of recurrence.

A new study, however, calls that thinking into question.

In a nationwide review of over 5,000 women in the Netherlands, Dutch investigators found that neoadjuvant therapy eradicates DCIS about half of the time in women with invasive HER2-positive breast cancer.

The study is the largest look into the issue to date and confirms similar reports from a handful of smaller studies.

“These findings are important to create awareness that the presence of a DCIS component ... should not necessarily indicate the need for mastectomy,” said Roxanne Ploumen, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues.

The study was published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

The research team compared biopsy results before neoadjuvant therapy with pathology reports following surgery. DCIS had a pathologic complete response rate of 52%. Neoadjuvant therapy generally consisted of anthracyclines followed by docetaxel or paclitaxel, in combination with trastuzumab.

The study also supports the assertion that women with DCIS are less likely to have breast-conserving surgery. Patients with DCIS were more likely to get mastectomies in the study (53.6% vs. 41%; P < .001) although the exact reasons are unclear because the data didn’t capture information relevant to surgical decision-making, including patient preferences and the extent of calcifications on mammography.

The key now is to find a way to assess how well DCIS responds to neoadjuvant therapy to better guide surgical decisions. Future studies should “investigate the evaluation of DCIS response by imaging” to increase the chance of breast-conserving surgery. “Moreover, a thorough investigation of pathologic characteristics” that predict response “could be useful,” Dr. Ploumen and associates said.

The investigators did find a few correlations that might help with response prediction; complete resolution of DCIS was associated with a complete response of the primary tumor to neoadjuvant therapy as well as negative estrogen receptor status and more recent breast cancer diagnosis, likely because of recent improvements in neoadjuvant therapy, including dual anti-HER2 blockade from 2017 onward, the team said.

Asked for comment, Kathy Miller, MD, a breast medical oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, called the findings “interesting.”

“I suspect the challenge is that DCIS is often associated with microcalcifications” that don’t go away with therapy, “so it is common for [surgeons] to remove all areas” with microcalcifications. For now, “we can’t determine if the DCIS has” resolved with neoadjuvant therapy, so leaving calcifications behind “means accepting the possibility that you might be leaving residual disease behind,” she said.

The analysis included 5,598 women diagnosed with HER2-positive invasive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy and surgery between 2010 and 2020. The investigators coupled the Netherlands Cancer Registry with the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank to conduct their analysis.

About a quarter of the women had a DCIS component to their breast tumors.

The work was funded by the Jules Coenegracht Senior Foundation. Dr. Ploumen and Dr. Miller reported no conflicts of interest. Three investigators reported ties to Servier Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Novartis, and other companies.