Nick Mulcahy

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005–2015, there were 30,000-plus medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, PhD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the “virtual meetings!”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process described by Medscape Medical News.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, will now occur online on those days. The ACC says it will stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast forward 50-plus years to 2019: there were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, in his regular column for Medscape Cardiology/theheart.org.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argues. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he writes.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her healthcare colleagues: “...there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005–2015, there were 30,000-plus medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, PhD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the “virtual meetings!”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process described by Medscape Medical News.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, will now occur online on those days. The ACC says it will stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast forward 50-plus years to 2019: there were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, in his regular column for Medscape Cardiology/theheart.org.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argues. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he writes.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her healthcare colleagues: “...there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005–2015, there were 30,000-plus medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, PhD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the “virtual meetings!”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process described by Medscape Medical News.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, will now occur online on those days. The ACC says it will stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast forward 50-plus years to 2019: there were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, in his regular column for Medscape Cardiology/theheart.org.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argues. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he writes.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her healthcare colleagues: “...there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In December, at a major breast cancer conference, some attendees couldn’t find a seat and were told to leave an overcrowded session on immunotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). They refused, and pushed in to hear what was being said.

The crowd might have been surprised to learn that the main draw of the event, a successful new drug, was not all it might have been for women with the disease, being handicapped by a test that determines who is eligible for it.

“That room was overpacked ― there were five people deep against the wall. ... It was amazing,” said Janice Cowden of Bradenton, Florida. She attended the meeting, the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, as a patient advocate.

Cowden lives with metastatic TNBC, which is known for poor prognoses, aggressiveness, and a lack of targeted treatment options. “Stage IV is a state of desperation. We just want something to work,” she said.

That’s why the conference room was packed – the session was focused on something that had been found to work – the immunotherapy atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech/Roche).

Atezolizumab had recently been conditionally approved for first-line use in advanced TNBC, having been shown to significantly slow disease progression and, in some patients, to possibly improve survival. A pair of medical oncologists reviewed the clinical trial data during the session.

One important point from the trial data was that the benefit was greater in patients whose tumors had the biomarker PD-L1, and so the Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug specified that it should be used only in those patients.

The drug approval was accompanied by approval of a companion diagnostic test used to identify this PD-L1-positive subgroup of patients, the Ventana SP142 Assay (Roche Diagnostics).

At the meeting, pathologist David Rimm, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, discussed the biomarker PD-L1 and the test. Rimm had a subtle but unsettling message about the crucial test: that the SP142 diagnostic assay, when used by increasing numbers of pathologists, resulted in increasing rates of PD-L1 scores that were not concordant.

A related meeting poster, presented the next day with Rimm as senior author, was more explicit and concluded that “more than half of the pathologists in real-world situations may mis- assign” patient scores with SP142 (and another Roche assay) because of wide variability in readouts.

“They’ve made a test that is inadequate – it just doesn’t work. It’s like flipping a coin,” he told Medscape Medical News about Roche’s SP142 assay in everyday practice.

The general problem is not a new one – for some years there have been problems with the use of PD-L1 as a biomarker for immunotherapy and with assays for that biomarker, with many groups questioning both accuracy and reproducibility. But the problems with SP142 are “the most egregious,” said Rimm, who has served as a paid consultant to Roche Diagnostics in the past.

In clinical practice, Rimm’s overall message is that because of the difficulty of reading SP142 assay results, some TNBC patients who were PD-L1-positive would not get the drug, and some who were not positive would get the drug.

Patient advocate Cowden was not worried about overtreatment. She was concerned about patients who “might die without receiving a potentially life-extending treatment.”

In an essay in the Pathologist, Rimm echoed that sentiment about undertreatment (as well as overtreatment) with atezolizumab for breast cancer: “In all cases, the patients are the potential victims, but this appears to be completely under the radar of the hype surrounding this new drug.”
 

Roche Disputes Problems With Assay

Roche, manufacturer of both atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic test, disputes that there is a problem.

The FDA and multiple health authorities worldwide have approved atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic SP142 assay for use in TNBC, points out Eslie Dennis, MD, vice president of medical affairs at Roche Tissue Diagnostics.

“The role of a companion diagnostic assay is to discriminate between responders and non-responders for a specific therapeutic product in a specific indication, with a cut-off based on clinical outcomes,” she wrote in an email to Medscape Medical News.

Data from the pivotal IMpassion130 trial show that the assay was effective at that task. Among the 369 patients in the 902-patient trial whose tumors were ≥1% positive for PD-L1, those treated with atezolizumab (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 185) had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.4 months, vs. 4.8 months among those treated with placebo (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 184) (P < .0001).

“Exploratory analysis showed no [PFS] benefit in PD-L1-negative patients as tested by the SP142 assay [in IMpassion130],” Dennis and three other physicians write in a reply to Rimm in a letter published in July 2019 in the Pathologist.

The same held true for overall survival in exploratory analysis – there was no benefit with atezolizumab among the PD-L1-negative patients, they write.

Notably, overall survival benefit for patients who were PD-L1 positive was about 10 months (at the first interim analysis; at the second analysis, the benefit dropped to 7 months and was not statistically significant).

But Rimm points out that the pivotal trial used only one pathologist in a central lab to determine PD-L1 status, who was undoubtedly an expert with the SP142 assay.

Further, Rimm observes that additional data submitted to the FDA to show that SP142 test results are reproducible outside of the pivotal trial setting were performed with only three pathologists and thus unsurprisingly yielded high rates of agreement – all above 90%.

The data from both of these circumstances are problematic, Rimm said, because in the real world, hundreds of pathologists will score the SP142 assay – all in the context of a busy day reading a variety of other tests for other diseases.

It’s one thing to get an FDA approval for an assay, and it’s another thing to be a reliable, well-functioning assay in the real world, he summarized.

Last year, Roberto Salgado, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, commented that “a positive phase III trial should not be taken as a guarantee that the assay used in the trial can be implemented in daily practice” in an opinion piece in the Pathologist.
 

SP142 Identifies the “Fewest Possible Patients”

The SP142 assay has been shown in multiple studies to have lower sensitivity for PD-L1 than other competing PD-L1 assays, said Rimm, citing examples such as a 2017 study and a 2018 study.

Angela DeMichele, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, agreed and explained what that meant in practical terms for women whose tumors are tested with SP142. “It means that the test is going to identify the fewest possible PD-L1-positive patients [relative to the other available assays],” she said. “It [the SP142 assay] is far from a perfect test for this situation,” added DeMichele, an expert on biomarkers in breast cancer clinical trials.

She said that biomarker tests, like many products of science, tend to become dated with the passage of time, as more is learned about the target and new assays are developed. “Unfortunately, you can’t change assays midstream,” said DeMichele. She has received a grant from Roche and Stand Up to Cancer to study atezolizumab and another drug in a clinical trial among patients with metastatic TNBC who have minimal residual disease.

DeMichele also said that “David Rimm is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about this issue.”

But DeMichelle also points out the practical: “We’re stuck as clinicians” because regulatory bodies and insurance companies only pay for atezolizumab when the SP142 assay indicates PD-L1 positivity. That’s not the case in Europe, where health authorities do not specify which PD-L1 assay is to be used with atezolizumab for breast cancer, pointed out Belgium’s Salgado last year.
 

Another Level of Complexity

At the immunotherapy session in San Antonio, Rimm discussed the results of a study of 68 TNBC archived cases in which specimens were stained with the SP142 assay at Yale and were distributed via electronic images to 19 pathologists at 14 institutions across the United States for PD-L1 scoring.

The study, coauthored by academics from Iowa, Texas A&M, UC San Diego, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, and others, used a novel method to determine the minimum number of evaluators needed to estimate “concordance” or agreement about a test result among large numbers of readers. The consensus/agreement was as high as 80% when eight or fewer pathologists’ scores were compared, but was as low as 40% when results from more than eight pathologists were included, said Rimm.

These are some of the data that led him to declare that using the assay is no better than flipping a coin.

Yes, PD-L1 testing is a challenge, and it has “introduced another level of complexity” for pathologists in reading assays, write experts Emina Torlakovic, MD, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Allen Gown, MD, PhenoPath Laboratories, Seattle, in response to Rimm last year.

But there is “poor” consensus among pathologists, they point out, “for many scoring systems that are still clinically applied (such as Gleason grading).” Consensus “improves with education and training,” the pair add. To that end, Roche has initiated a global training program for pathologists using the SP142 assay for TNBC. At San Antonio, Roche’s Dennis reported that among 432 pathologists from 58 countries, there was overall agreement of 98.2% in scoring assays.

Rimm commented that such high agreement would not be a surprise if testing took place soon after any such training program.

In an email to Medscape Medical News, Torlakovic encouraged pathologists who wish to practice their skill in interpreting assays, including SP142, to visit CBQAReadout.ca, a testing site. The site, which was founded by Torlakovic and may be one of a kind, offers CME credits and is sponsored by independent pathology organizations, such as CAP-ACP and the Saskatchewan Health Authority, as well as pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.

No Clue

Patient advocate Cowden believes the controversy about PD-L1 testing for atezolizumab is largely unknown among breast cancer patients. She learned about SP142 assay ambiguities in San Antonio, when the Florida Breast Cancer Foundation funded her trip to the meeting and the Alamo Breast Cancer Foundation asked her to write a report on Rimm’s presentation.

Cowden is a member of a Facebook group for stage IV TNBC, which has about 1500 members. She estimates that 75%-80% would be willing to try atezolizumab “no matter what,” meaning they don’t care about PD-L1 positivity being associated with efficacy.

The Facebook group members “know there is a test and if you are positive, there is an immunotherapy for their breast cancer,” said Cowden.

None know that women may be excluded from treatment because of shortcomings with the SP142 test. “They have no clue,” she said.

Rimm and DeMichele have financial ties to Roche and other companies. Dennis is an employee of Roche. Torlakovic has ties to multiple companies, including Roche, for whom she has acted as a paid consultant, grant recipient, and paid lecturer. Gown did not respond to a request for financial disclosures. Cowden reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In December, at a major breast cancer conference, some attendees couldn’t find a seat and were told to leave an overcrowded session on immunotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). They refused, and pushed in to hear what was being said.

The crowd might have been surprised to learn that the main draw of the event, a successful new drug, was not all it might have been for women with the disease, being handicapped by a test that determines who is eligible for it.

“That room was overpacked ― there were five people deep against the wall. ... It was amazing,” said Janice Cowden of Bradenton, Florida. She attended the meeting, the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, as a patient advocate.

Cowden lives with metastatic TNBC, which is known for poor prognoses, aggressiveness, and a lack of targeted treatment options. “Stage IV is a state of desperation. We just want something to work,” she said.

That’s why the conference room was packed – the session was focused on something that had been found to work – the immunotherapy atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech/Roche).

Atezolizumab had recently been conditionally approved for first-line use in advanced TNBC, having been shown to significantly slow disease progression and, in some patients, to possibly improve survival. A pair of medical oncologists reviewed the clinical trial data during the session.

One important point from the trial data was that the benefit was greater in patients whose tumors had the biomarker PD-L1, and so the Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug specified that it should be used only in those patients.

The drug approval was accompanied by approval of a companion diagnostic test used to identify this PD-L1-positive subgroup of patients, the Ventana SP142 Assay (Roche Diagnostics).

At the meeting, pathologist David Rimm, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, discussed the biomarker PD-L1 and the test. Rimm had a subtle but unsettling message about the crucial test: that the SP142 diagnostic assay, when used by increasing numbers of pathologists, resulted in increasing rates of PD-L1 scores that were not concordant.

A related meeting poster, presented the next day with Rimm as senior author, was more explicit and concluded that “more than half of the pathologists in real-world situations may mis- assign” patient scores with SP142 (and another Roche assay) because of wide variability in readouts.

“They’ve made a test that is inadequate – it just doesn’t work. It’s like flipping a coin,” he told Medscape Medical News about Roche’s SP142 assay in everyday practice.

The general problem is not a new one – for some years there have been problems with the use of PD-L1 as a biomarker for immunotherapy and with assays for that biomarker, with many groups questioning both accuracy and reproducibility. But the problems with SP142 are “the most egregious,” said Rimm, who has served as a paid consultant to Roche Diagnostics in the past.

In clinical practice, Rimm’s overall message is that because of the difficulty of reading SP142 assay results, some TNBC patients who were PD-L1-positive would not get the drug, and some who were not positive would get the drug.

Patient advocate Cowden was not worried about overtreatment. She was concerned about patients who “might die without receiving a potentially life-extending treatment.”

In an essay in the Pathologist, Rimm echoed that sentiment about undertreatment (as well as overtreatment) with atezolizumab for breast cancer: “In all cases, the patients are the potential victims, but this appears to be completely under the radar of the hype surrounding this new drug.”
 

Roche Disputes Problems With Assay

Roche, manufacturer of both atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic test, disputes that there is a problem.

The FDA and multiple health authorities worldwide have approved atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic SP142 assay for use in TNBC, points out Eslie Dennis, MD, vice president of medical affairs at Roche Tissue Diagnostics.

“The role of a companion diagnostic assay is to discriminate between responders and non-responders for a specific therapeutic product in a specific indication, with a cut-off based on clinical outcomes,” she wrote in an email to Medscape Medical News.

Data from the pivotal IMpassion130 trial show that the assay was effective at that task. Among the 369 patients in the 902-patient trial whose tumors were ≥1% positive for PD-L1, those treated with atezolizumab (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 185) had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.4 months, vs. 4.8 months among those treated with placebo (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 184) (P < .0001).

“Exploratory analysis showed no [PFS] benefit in PD-L1-negative patients as tested by the SP142 assay [in IMpassion130],” Dennis and three other physicians write in a reply to Rimm in a letter published in July 2019 in the Pathologist.

The same held true for overall survival in exploratory analysis – there was no benefit with atezolizumab among the PD-L1-negative patients, they write.

Notably, overall survival benefit for patients who were PD-L1 positive was about 10 months (at the first interim analysis; at the second analysis, the benefit dropped to 7 months and was not statistically significant).

But Rimm points out that the pivotal trial used only one pathologist in a central lab to determine PD-L1 status, who was undoubtedly an expert with the SP142 assay.

Further, Rimm observes that additional data submitted to the FDA to show that SP142 test results are reproducible outside of the pivotal trial setting were performed with only three pathologists and thus unsurprisingly yielded high rates of agreement – all above 90%.

The data from both of these circumstances are problematic, Rimm said, because in the real world, hundreds of pathologists will score the SP142 assay – all in the context of a busy day reading a variety of other tests for other diseases.

It’s one thing to get an FDA approval for an assay, and it’s another thing to be a reliable, well-functioning assay in the real world, he summarized.

Last year, Roberto Salgado, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, commented that “a positive phase III trial should not be taken as a guarantee that the assay used in the trial can be implemented in daily practice” in an opinion piece in the Pathologist.
 

SP142 Identifies the “Fewest Possible Patients”

The SP142 assay has been shown in multiple studies to have lower sensitivity for PD-L1 than other competing PD-L1 assays, said Rimm, citing examples such as a 2017 study and a 2018 study.

Angela DeMichele, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, agreed and explained what that meant in practical terms for women whose tumors are tested with SP142. “It means that the test is going to identify the fewest possible PD-L1-positive patients [relative to the other available assays],” she said. “It [the SP142 assay] is far from a perfect test for this situation,” added DeMichele, an expert on biomarkers in breast cancer clinical trials.

She said that biomarker tests, like many products of science, tend to become dated with the passage of time, as more is learned about the target and new assays are developed. “Unfortunately, you can’t change assays midstream,” said DeMichele. She has received a grant from Roche and Stand Up to Cancer to study atezolizumab and another drug in a clinical trial among patients with metastatic TNBC who have minimal residual disease.

DeMichele also said that “David Rimm is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about this issue.”

But DeMichelle also points out the practical: “We’re stuck as clinicians” because regulatory bodies and insurance companies only pay for atezolizumab when the SP142 assay indicates PD-L1 positivity. That’s not the case in Europe, where health authorities do not specify which PD-L1 assay is to be used with atezolizumab for breast cancer, pointed out Belgium’s Salgado last year.
 

Another Level of Complexity

At the immunotherapy session in San Antonio, Rimm discussed the results of a study of 68 TNBC archived cases in which specimens were stained with the SP142 assay at Yale and were distributed via electronic images to 19 pathologists at 14 institutions across the United States for PD-L1 scoring.

The study, coauthored by academics from Iowa, Texas A&M, UC San Diego, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, and others, used a novel method to determine the minimum number of evaluators needed to estimate “concordance” or agreement about a test result among large numbers of readers. The consensus/agreement was as high as 80% when eight or fewer pathologists’ scores were compared, but was as low as 40% when results from more than eight pathologists were included, said Rimm.

These are some of the data that led him to declare that using the assay is no better than flipping a coin.

Yes, PD-L1 testing is a challenge, and it has “introduced another level of complexity” for pathologists in reading assays, write experts Emina Torlakovic, MD, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Allen Gown, MD, PhenoPath Laboratories, Seattle, in response to Rimm last year.

But there is “poor” consensus among pathologists, they point out, “for many scoring systems that are still clinically applied (such as Gleason grading).” Consensus “improves with education and training,” the pair add. To that end, Roche has initiated a global training program for pathologists using the SP142 assay for TNBC. At San Antonio, Roche’s Dennis reported that among 432 pathologists from 58 countries, there was overall agreement of 98.2% in scoring assays.

Rimm commented that such high agreement would not be a surprise if testing took place soon after any such training program.

In an email to Medscape Medical News, Torlakovic encouraged pathologists who wish to practice their skill in interpreting assays, including SP142, to visit CBQAReadout.ca, a testing site. The site, which was founded by Torlakovic and may be one of a kind, offers CME credits and is sponsored by independent pathology organizations, such as CAP-ACP and the Saskatchewan Health Authority, as well as pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.

No Clue

Patient advocate Cowden believes the controversy about PD-L1 testing for atezolizumab is largely unknown among breast cancer patients. She learned about SP142 assay ambiguities in San Antonio, when the Florida Breast Cancer Foundation funded her trip to the meeting and the Alamo Breast Cancer Foundation asked her to write a report on Rimm’s presentation.

Cowden is a member of a Facebook group for stage IV TNBC, which has about 1500 members. She estimates that 75%-80% would be willing to try atezolizumab “no matter what,” meaning they don’t care about PD-L1 positivity being associated with efficacy.

The Facebook group members “know there is a test and if you are positive, there is an immunotherapy for their breast cancer,” said Cowden.

None know that women may be excluded from treatment because of shortcomings with the SP142 test. “They have no clue,” she said.

Rimm and DeMichele have financial ties to Roche and other companies. Dennis is an employee of Roche. Torlakovic has ties to multiple companies, including Roche, for whom she has acted as a paid consultant, grant recipient, and paid lecturer. Gown did not respond to a request for financial disclosures. Cowden reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In December, at a major breast cancer conference, some attendees couldn’t find a seat and were told to leave an overcrowded session on immunotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). They refused, and pushed in to hear what was being said.

The crowd might have been surprised to learn that the main draw of the event, a successful new drug, was not all it might have been for women with the disease, being handicapped by a test that determines who is eligible for it.

“That room was overpacked ― there were five people deep against the wall. ... It was amazing,” said Janice Cowden of Bradenton, Florida. She attended the meeting, the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, as a patient advocate.

Cowden lives with metastatic TNBC, which is known for poor prognoses, aggressiveness, and a lack of targeted treatment options. “Stage IV is a state of desperation. We just want something to work,” she said.

That’s why the conference room was packed – the session was focused on something that had been found to work – the immunotherapy atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech/Roche).

Atezolizumab had recently been conditionally approved for first-line use in advanced TNBC, having been shown to significantly slow disease progression and, in some patients, to possibly improve survival. A pair of medical oncologists reviewed the clinical trial data during the session.

One important point from the trial data was that the benefit was greater in patients whose tumors had the biomarker PD-L1, and so the Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug specified that it should be used only in those patients.

The drug approval was accompanied by approval of a companion diagnostic test used to identify this PD-L1-positive subgroup of patients, the Ventana SP142 Assay (Roche Diagnostics).

At the meeting, pathologist David Rimm, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, discussed the biomarker PD-L1 and the test. Rimm had a subtle but unsettling message about the crucial test: that the SP142 diagnostic assay, when used by increasing numbers of pathologists, resulted in increasing rates of PD-L1 scores that were not concordant.

A related meeting poster, presented the next day with Rimm as senior author, was more explicit and concluded that “more than half of the pathologists in real-world situations may mis- assign” patient scores with SP142 (and another Roche assay) because of wide variability in readouts.

“They’ve made a test that is inadequate – it just doesn’t work. It’s like flipping a coin,” he told Medscape Medical News about Roche’s SP142 assay in everyday practice.

The general problem is not a new one – for some years there have been problems with the use of PD-L1 as a biomarker for immunotherapy and with assays for that biomarker, with many groups questioning both accuracy and reproducibility. But the problems with SP142 are “the most egregious,” said Rimm, who has served as a paid consultant to Roche Diagnostics in the past.

In clinical practice, Rimm’s overall message is that because of the difficulty of reading SP142 assay results, some TNBC patients who were PD-L1-positive would not get the drug, and some who were not positive would get the drug.

Patient advocate Cowden was not worried about overtreatment. She was concerned about patients who “might die without receiving a potentially life-extending treatment.”

In an essay in the Pathologist, Rimm echoed that sentiment about undertreatment (as well as overtreatment) with atezolizumab for breast cancer: “In all cases, the patients are the potential victims, but this appears to be completely under the radar of the hype surrounding this new drug.”
 

Roche Disputes Problems With Assay

Roche, manufacturer of both atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic test, disputes that there is a problem.

The FDA and multiple health authorities worldwide have approved atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic SP142 assay for use in TNBC, points out Eslie Dennis, MD, vice president of medical affairs at Roche Tissue Diagnostics.

“The role of a companion diagnostic assay is to discriminate between responders and non-responders for a specific therapeutic product in a specific indication, with a cut-off based on clinical outcomes,” she wrote in an email to Medscape Medical News.

Data from the pivotal IMpassion130 trial show that the assay was effective at that task. Among the 369 patients in the 902-patient trial whose tumors were ≥1% positive for PD-L1, those treated with atezolizumab (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 185) had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.4 months, vs. 4.8 months among those treated with placebo (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 184) (P < .0001).

“Exploratory analysis showed no [PFS] benefit in PD-L1-negative patients as tested by the SP142 assay [in IMpassion130],” Dennis and three other physicians write in a reply to Rimm in a letter published in July 2019 in the Pathologist.

The same held true for overall survival in exploratory analysis – there was no benefit with atezolizumab among the PD-L1-negative patients, they write.

Notably, overall survival benefit for patients who were PD-L1 positive was about 10 months (at the first interim analysis; at the second analysis, the benefit dropped to 7 months and was not statistically significant).

But Rimm points out that the pivotal trial used only one pathologist in a central lab to determine PD-L1 status, who was undoubtedly an expert with the SP142 assay.

Further, Rimm observes that additional data submitted to the FDA to show that SP142 test results are reproducible outside of the pivotal trial setting were performed with only three pathologists and thus unsurprisingly yielded high rates of agreement – all above 90%.

The data from both of these circumstances are problematic, Rimm said, because in the real world, hundreds of pathologists will score the SP142 assay – all in the context of a busy day reading a variety of other tests for other diseases.

It’s one thing to get an FDA approval for an assay, and it’s another thing to be a reliable, well-functioning assay in the real world, he summarized.

Last year, Roberto Salgado, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, commented that “a positive phase III trial should not be taken as a guarantee that the assay used in the trial can be implemented in daily practice” in an opinion piece in the Pathologist.
 

SP142 Identifies the “Fewest Possible Patients”

The SP142 assay has been shown in multiple studies to have lower sensitivity for PD-L1 than other competing PD-L1 assays, said Rimm, citing examples such as a 2017 study and a 2018 study.

Angela DeMichele, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, agreed and explained what that meant in practical terms for women whose tumors are tested with SP142. “It means that the test is going to identify the fewest possible PD-L1-positive patients [relative to the other available assays],” she said. “It [the SP142 assay] is far from a perfect test for this situation,” added DeMichele, an expert on biomarkers in breast cancer clinical trials.

She said that biomarker tests, like many products of science, tend to become dated with the passage of time, as more is learned about the target and new assays are developed. “Unfortunately, you can’t change assays midstream,” said DeMichele. She has received a grant from Roche and Stand Up to Cancer to study atezolizumab and another drug in a clinical trial among patients with metastatic TNBC who have minimal residual disease.

DeMichele also said that “David Rimm is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about this issue.”

But DeMichelle also points out the practical: “We’re stuck as clinicians” because regulatory bodies and insurance companies only pay for atezolizumab when the SP142 assay indicates PD-L1 positivity. That’s not the case in Europe, where health authorities do not specify which PD-L1 assay is to be used with atezolizumab for breast cancer, pointed out Belgium’s Salgado last year.
 

Another Level of Complexity

At the immunotherapy session in San Antonio, Rimm discussed the results of a study of 68 TNBC archived cases in which specimens were stained with the SP142 assay at Yale and were distributed via electronic images to 19 pathologists at 14 institutions across the United States for PD-L1 scoring.

The study, coauthored by academics from Iowa, Texas A&M, UC San Diego, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, and others, used a novel method to determine the minimum number of evaluators needed to estimate “concordance” or agreement about a test result among large numbers of readers. The consensus/agreement was as high as 80% when eight or fewer pathologists’ scores were compared, but was as low as 40% when results from more than eight pathologists were included, said Rimm.

These are some of the data that led him to declare that using the assay is no better than flipping a coin.

Yes, PD-L1 testing is a challenge, and it has “introduced another level of complexity” for pathologists in reading assays, write experts Emina Torlakovic, MD, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Allen Gown, MD, PhenoPath Laboratories, Seattle, in response to Rimm last year.

But there is “poor” consensus among pathologists, they point out, “for many scoring systems that are still clinically applied (such as Gleason grading).” Consensus “improves with education and training,” the pair add. To that end, Roche has initiated a global training program for pathologists using the SP142 assay for TNBC. At San Antonio, Roche’s Dennis reported that among 432 pathologists from 58 countries, there was overall agreement of 98.2% in scoring assays.

Rimm commented that such high agreement would not be a surprise if testing took place soon after any such training program.

In an email to Medscape Medical News, Torlakovic encouraged pathologists who wish to practice their skill in interpreting assays, including SP142, to visit CBQAReadout.ca, a testing site. The site, which was founded by Torlakovic and may be one of a kind, offers CME credits and is sponsored by independent pathology organizations, such as CAP-ACP and the Saskatchewan Health Authority, as well as pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.

No Clue

Patient advocate Cowden believes the controversy about PD-L1 testing for atezolizumab is largely unknown among breast cancer patients. She learned about SP142 assay ambiguities in San Antonio, when the Florida Breast Cancer Foundation funded her trip to the meeting and the Alamo Breast Cancer Foundation asked her to write a report on Rimm’s presentation.

Cowden is a member of a Facebook group for stage IV TNBC, which has about 1500 members. She estimates that 75%-80% would be willing to try atezolizumab “no matter what,” meaning they don’t care about PD-L1 positivity being associated with efficacy.

The Facebook group members “know there is a test and if you are positive, there is an immunotherapy for their breast cancer,” said Cowden.

None know that women may be excluded from treatment because of shortcomings with the SP142 test. “They have no clue,” she said.

Rimm and DeMichele have financial ties to Roche and other companies. Dennis is an employee of Roche. Torlakovic has ties to multiple companies, including Roche, for whom she has acted as a paid consultant, grant recipient, and paid lecturer. Gown did not respond to a request for financial disclosures. Cowden reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with advanced liver cancer have a new treatment option – the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb).

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted an accelerated approval of the combination for use in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who have previously been treated with sorafenib (Nexavar, Bayer). Nivolumab is already approved as monotherapy for use in advanced HCC in patients who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The immunotherapy combination has shown a response rate that is more than twice that seen with nivolumab alone. The combination was tested at three different dosage schedules in the single-arm phase 1/2 trial known as CheckMate-040, which was conducted in 148 patients with advanced HCC who had previously been treated with sorafenib.

The approval was based on one arm of this trial, a cohort of 49 patients who were treated with nivolumab 1 mg/kg IV and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

After a minimum follow-up of 28 months, 33% (16/49) of these patients showed a response, with 8% (4/49) showing a complete response and 24% (12/49) a partial response.

In terms of duration of responses, 88% of the responses lasted at least 6 months, 56% at least 12 months, and 31% at least 24 months, according to the company.

The results that led to the 2017 approval of nivolumab monotherapy for advanced HCC, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, come from a cohort of 154 patients who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg administered intravenously every 2 weeks.

The overall response rate was 14.3% (22 of 154 patients), with three patients (1.9%) showing a complete response and 19 patients (12.3%) a partial response. The duration of the responses ranged from 3.2 to 38.2+ months; 91% of those patients had responses of 6 months or longer, and 55% had responses of 12 months or longer.

Notably, patient responses in all arms were achieved regardless of baseline tumor PD-L1 status.
 

Aggressive disease, incidence is rising

“HCC is an aggressive disease in need of different treatment approaches,” said Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, of the Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in a company press statement.“The overall response rate observed in the Opdivo + Yervoy cohort of the CheckMate-040 trial underscores the potential of this dual immunotherapy as a possible treatment option for patients,” he commented. El-Khoueiry was lead investigator of the study and has received honoraria and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“The incidence of liver cancer is rising in the United States, and HCC is the most common and aggressive form of the disease,” said Andrea Wilson, president and founder, Blue Faery: The Adrienne Wilson Liver Cancer Association.

“Today’s approval provides a new option for patients with HCC previously treated with sorafenib, giving the community more hope,” she said in the company press statement.

Safety profile

The nivolumab-ipilimumab combination had an “acceptable” safety profile overall in the CheckMate-040 trial, wrote lead study author Thomas Yao, MD, of the University at Hong Kong, China, and colleagues in their study abstract, which was presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Yao has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has served as a consultant to the company.

According to those data, 37% of patients had a grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), the most common of which were pruritus and rash; 5% had grade 3–4 TRAEs that led to discontinuation.

Nivolumab is associated with pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, renal dysfunction, skin adverse reactions, encephalitis, other adverse reactions, and infusion-related reactions, as well as embryo-fetal toxicity. Ipilimumab has a boxed warning for immune-mediated adverse reactions.

Nivolumab alone is approved for use in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, and classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is also approved for use in the treatment of melanoma and renal cell carcinoma.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with advanced liver cancer have a new treatment option – the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb).

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted an accelerated approval of the combination for use in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who have previously been treated with sorafenib (Nexavar, Bayer). Nivolumab is already approved as monotherapy for use in advanced HCC in patients who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The immunotherapy combination has shown a response rate that is more than twice that seen with nivolumab alone. The combination was tested at three different dosage schedules in the single-arm phase 1/2 trial known as CheckMate-040, which was conducted in 148 patients with advanced HCC who had previously been treated with sorafenib.

The approval was based on one arm of this trial, a cohort of 49 patients who were treated with nivolumab 1 mg/kg IV and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

After a minimum follow-up of 28 months, 33% (16/49) of these patients showed a response, with 8% (4/49) showing a complete response and 24% (12/49) a partial response.

In terms of duration of responses, 88% of the responses lasted at least 6 months, 56% at least 12 months, and 31% at least 24 months, according to the company.

The results that led to the 2017 approval of nivolumab monotherapy for advanced HCC, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, come from a cohort of 154 patients who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg administered intravenously every 2 weeks.

The overall response rate was 14.3% (22 of 154 patients), with three patients (1.9%) showing a complete response and 19 patients (12.3%) a partial response. The duration of the responses ranged from 3.2 to 38.2+ months; 91% of those patients had responses of 6 months or longer, and 55% had responses of 12 months or longer.

Notably, patient responses in all arms were achieved regardless of baseline tumor PD-L1 status.
 

Aggressive disease, incidence is rising

“HCC is an aggressive disease in need of different treatment approaches,” said Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, of the Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in a company press statement.“The overall response rate observed in the Opdivo + Yervoy cohort of the CheckMate-040 trial underscores the potential of this dual immunotherapy as a possible treatment option for patients,” he commented. El-Khoueiry was lead investigator of the study and has received honoraria and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“The incidence of liver cancer is rising in the United States, and HCC is the most common and aggressive form of the disease,” said Andrea Wilson, president and founder, Blue Faery: The Adrienne Wilson Liver Cancer Association.

“Today’s approval provides a new option for patients with HCC previously treated with sorafenib, giving the community more hope,” she said in the company press statement.

Safety profile

The nivolumab-ipilimumab combination had an “acceptable” safety profile overall in the CheckMate-040 trial, wrote lead study author Thomas Yao, MD, of the University at Hong Kong, China, and colleagues in their study abstract, which was presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Yao has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has served as a consultant to the company.

According to those data, 37% of patients had a grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), the most common of which were pruritus and rash; 5% had grade 3–4 TRAEs that led to discontinuation.

Nivolumab is associated with pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, renal dysfunction, skin adverse reactions, encephalitis, other adverse reactions, and infusion-related reactions, as well as embryo-fetal toxicity. Ipilimumab has a boxed warning for immune-mediated adverse reactions.

Nivolumab alone is approved for use in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, and classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is also approved for use in the treatment of melanoma and renal cell carcinoma.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with advanced liver cancer have a new treatment option – the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb).

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted an accelerated approval of the combination for use in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who have previously been treated with sorafenib (Nexavar, Bayer). Nivolumab is already approved as monotherapy for use in advanced HCC in patients who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The immunotherapy combination has shown a response rate that is more than twice that seen with nivolumab alone. The combination was tested at three different dosage schedules in the single-arm phase 1/2 trial known as CheckMate-040, which was conducted in 148 patients with advanced HCC who had previously been treated with sorafenib.

The approval was based on one arm of this trial, a cohort of 49 patients who were treated with nivolumab 1 mg/kg IV and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

After a minimum follow-up of 28 months, 33% (16/49) of these patients showed a response, with 8% (4/49) showing a complete response and 24% (12/49) a partial response.

In terms of duration of responses, 88% of the responses lasted at least 6 months, 56% at least 12 months, and 31% at least 24 months, according to the company.

The results that led to the 2017 approval of nivolumab monotherapy for advanced HCC, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, come from a cohort of 154 patients who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg administered intravenously every 2 weeks.

The overall response rate was 14.3% (22 of 154 patients), with three patients (1.9%) showing a complete response and 19 patients (12.3%) a partial response. The duration of the responses ranged from 3.2 to 38.2+ months; 91% of those patients had responses of 6 months or longer, and 55% had responses of 12 months or longer.

Notably, patient responses in all arms were achieved regardless of baseline tumor PD-L1 status.
 

Aggressive disease, incidence is rising

“HCC is an aggressive disease in need of different treatment approaches,” said Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, of the Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in a company press statement.“The overall response rate observed in the Opdivo + Yervoy cohort of the CheckMate-040 trial underscores the potential of this dual immunotherapy as a possible treatment option for patients,” he commented. El-Khoueiry was lead investigator of the study and has received honoraria and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“The incidence of liver cancer is rising in the United States, and HCC is the most common and aggressive form of the disease,” said Andrea Wilson, president and founder, Blue Faery: The Adrienne Wilson Liver Cancer Association.

“Today’s approval provides a new option for patients with HCC previously treated with sorafenib, giving the community more hope,” she said in the company press statement.

Safety profile

The nivolumab-ipilimumab combination had an “acceptable” safety profile overall in the CheckMate-040 trial, wrote lead study author Thomas Yao, MD, of the University at Hong Kong, China, and colleagues in their study abstract, which was presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Yao has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has served as a consultant to the company.

According to those data, 37% of patients had a grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), the most common of which were pruritus and rash; 5% had grade 3–4 TRAEs that led to discontinuation.

Nivolumab is associated with pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, renal dysfunction, skin adverse reactions, encephalitis, other adverse reactions, and infusion-related reactions, as well as embryo-fetal toxicity. Ipilimumab has a boxed warning for immune-mediated adverse reactions.

Nivolumab alone is approved for use in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, and classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is also approved for use in the treatment of melanoma and renal cell carcinoma.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi) in combination with pomalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received two or more prior therapies including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody administered by intravenous infusion that works by helping the immune system attack multiple myeloma cancer cells.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, Sarclisa is now another CD38-directed treatment option added to the list of FDA-approved treatments of patients with multiple myeloma who have progressive disease after previous therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“In the clinical trial, there was a 40% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with this therapy,” he added.

The new approval is based on results from ICARIA-MM, an open-label, randomized phase 3 clinical trial of isatuximab among 307 patients in this setting.

In the trial, at a median follow-up of 11.6 months, median progression-free survival was 11.5 months in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6.5 months in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001), as reported last year. Overall response rates were 60.4% for the triplet-treated group versus 35.3% for the doublet-treated group.

The most common side effects for isatuximab included neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Deaths because of treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (less than 1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two patients (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

The drug can also cause serious side effects, including IV infusion-related reactions. In the case of a grade 3 or higher reaction, the drug should be permanently discontinued and health care professionals should institute appropriate medical management.

The FDA notes there have been higher incidences of second primary malignancies observed in a controlled clinical trial of patients with multiple myeloma receiving the drug.

The FDA also highlighted that laboratory test interference may be caused by isatuximab and that blood banks should be informed that patients are receiving the drug. Isatuximab may interfere with, for example, antibody screening for patients who need a blood transfusion. Isatuximab may also interfere with the assays used to monitor M-protein, which may impact the determination of complete response.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi) in combination with pomalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received two or more prior therapies including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody administered by intravenous infusion that works by helping the immune system attack multiple myeloma cancer cells.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, Sarclisa is now another CD38-directed treatment option added to the list of FDA-approved treatments of patients with multiple myeloma who have progressive disease after previous therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“In the clinical trial, there was a 40% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with this therapy,” he added.

The new approval is based on results from ICARIA-MM, an open-label, randomized phase 3 clinical trial of isatuximab among 307 patients in this setting.

In the trial, at a median follow-up of 11.6 months, median progression-free survival was 11.5 months in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6.5 months in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001), as reported last year. Overall response rates were 60.4% for the triplet-treated group versus 35.3% for the doublet-treated group.

The most common side effects for isatuximab included neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Deaths because of treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (less than 1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two patients (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

The drug can also cause serious side effects, including IV infusion-related reactions. In the case of a grade 3 or higher reaction, the drug should be permanently discontinued and health care professionals should institute appropriate medical management.

The FDA notes there have been higher incidences of second primary malignancies observed in a controlled clinical trial of patients with multiple myeloma receiving the drug.

The FDA also highlighted that laboratory test interference may be caused by isatuximab and that blood banks should be informed that patients are receiving the drug. Isatuximab may interfere with, for example, antibody screening for patients who need a blood transfusion. Isatuximab may also interfere with the assays used to monitor M-protein, which may impact the determination of complete response.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi) in combination with pomalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received two or more prior therapies including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody administered by intravenous infusion that works by helping the immune system attack multiple myeloma cancer cells.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, Sarclisa is now another CD38-directed treatment option added to the list of FDA-approved treatments of patients with multiple myeloma who have progressive disease after previous therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“In the clinical trial, there was a 40% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with this therapy,” he added.

The new approval is based on results from ICARIA-MM, an open-label, randomized phase 3 clinical trial of isatuximab among 307 patients in this setting.

In the trial, at a median follow-up of 11.6 months, median progression-free survival was 11.5 months in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6.5 months in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001), as reported last year. Overall response rates were 60.4% for the triplet-treated group versus 35.3% for the doublet-treated group.

The most common side effects for isatuximab included neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Deaths because of treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (less than 1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two patients (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

The drug can also cause serious side effects, including IV infusion-related reactions. In the case of a grade 3 or higher reaction, the drug should be permanently discontinued and health care professionals should institute appropriate medical management.

The FDA notes there have been higher incidences of second primary malignancies observed in a controlled clinical trial of patients with multiple myeloma receiving the drug.

The FDA also highlighted that laboratory test interference may be caused by isatuximab and that blood banks should be informed that patients are receiving the drug. Isatuximab may interfere with, for example, antibody screening for patients who need a blood transfusion. Isatuximab may also interfere with the assays used to monitor M-protein, which may impact the determination of complete response.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.