User login
These adverse events linked to improved cancer prognosis
TOPLINE:
.
METHODOLOGY:
- Emerging evidence suggests that the presence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events may be linked with favorable outcomes among patients with cancer who receive ICIs.
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 23 studies and a total of 22,749 patients with cancer who received ICI treatment; studies compared outcomes among patients with and those without cutaneous immune-related adverse events.
- The major outcomes evaluated in the analysis were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS); subgroup analyses assessed cutaneous immune-related adverse event type, cancer type, and other factors.
TAKEAWAY:
- The occurrence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
- In the subgroup analysis, patients with eczematous (HR, 0.69), lichenoid or lichen planus–like skin lesions (HR, 0.51), pruritus without rash (HR, 0.70), psoriasis (HR, 0.63), or vitiligo (HR, 0.30) demonstrated a significant overall survival advantage. Vitiligo was the only adverse event associated with a PFS advantage (HR, 0.28).
- Among patients with melanoma, analyses revealed a significant association between the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events and improved overall survival (HR, 0.51) and PFS (HR, 0.45). The authors highlighted similar findings among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.50 for overall survival and 0.61 for PFS).
IN PRACTICE:
“These data suggest that [cutaneous immune-related adverse events] may have useful prognostic value in ICI treatment,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The analysis, led by Fei Wang, MD, Zhong Da Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Most of the data came from retrospective studies, and there were limited data on specific patient subgroups. The Egger tests, used to assess potential publication bias in meta-analyses, revealed publication bias.
DISCLOSURES:
No disclosures were reported. The study was supported by a grant from the Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
.
METHODOLOGY:
- Emerging evidence suggests that the presence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events may be linked with favorable outcomes among patients with cancer who receive ICIs.
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 23 studies and a total of 22,749 patients with cancer who received ICI treatment; studies compared outcomes among patients with and those without cutaneous immune-related adverse events.
- The major outcomes evaluated in the analysis were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS); subgroup analyses assessed cutaneous immune-related adverse event type, cancer type, and other factors.
TAKEAWAY:
- The occurrence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
- In the subgroup analysis, patients with eczematous (HR, 0.69), lichenoid or lichen planus–like skin lesions (HR, 0.51), pruritus without rash (HR, 0.70), psoriasis (HR, 0.63), or vitiligo (HR, 0.30) demonstrated a significant overall survival advantage. Vitiligo was the only adverse event associated with a PFS advantage (HR, 0.28).
- Among patients with melanoma, analyses revealed a significant association between the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events and improved overall survival (HR, 0.51) and PFS (HR, 0.45). The authors highlighted similar findings among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.50 for overall survival and 0.61 for PFS).
IN PRACTICE:
“These data suggest that [cutaneous immune-related adverse events] may have useful prognostic value in ICI treatment,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The analysis, led by Fei Wang, MD, Zhong Da Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Most of the data came from retrospective studies, and there were limited data on specific patient subgroups. The Egger tests, used to assess potential publication bias in meta-analyses, revealed publication bias.
DISCLOSURES:
No disclosures were reported. The study was supported by a grant from the Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
.
METHODOLOGY:
- Emerging evidence suggests that the presence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events may be linked with favorable outcomes among patients with cancer who receive ICIs.
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 23 studies and a total of 22,749 patients with cancer who received ICI treatment; studies compared outcomes among patients with and those without cutaneous immune-related adverse events.
- The major outcomes evaluated in the analysis were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS); subgroup analyses assessed cutaneous immune-related adverse event type, cancer type, and other factors.
TAKEAWAY:
- The occurrence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
- In the subgroup analysis, patients with eczematous (HR, 0.69), lichenoid or lichen planus–like skin lesions (HR, 0.51), pruritus without rash (HR, 0.70), psoriasis (HR, 0.63), or vitiligo (HR, 0.30) demonstrated a significant overall survival advantage. Vitiligo was the only adverse event associated with a PFS advantage (HR, 0.28).
- Among patients with melanoma, analyses revealed a significant association between the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events and improved overall survival (HR, 0.51) and PFS (HR, 0.45). The authors highlighted similar findings among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.50 for overall survival and 0.61 for PFS).
IN PRACTICE:
“These data suggest that [cutaneous immune-related adverse events] may have useful prognostic value in ICI treatment,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The analysis, led by Fei Wang, MD, Zhong Da Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Most of the data came from retrospective studies, and there were limited data on specific patient subgroups. The Egger tests, used to assess potential publication bias in meta-analyses, revealed publication bias.
DISCLOSURES:
No disclosures were reported. The study was supported by a grant from the Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Blueprint to curb postop opioids after pancreatic resection
TOPLINE:
Implementing a post-surgery protocol that has undergone incremental changes over time significantly reduced inpatient and discharge opioid volumes while maintaining pain control after pancreatic cancer surgery.
METHODOLOGY:
- To reduce opioid dependence, misuse, and diversion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines emphasize strategies to minimize opioid prescribing for managing pain. Still, opioid prescribing following surgery remains common practice.
- In the current study,
- The study evaluated three sequential protocols implemented over a period of about 6 years, from 2016 to 2022.
- In the final version, a standardized three-drug nonopioid bundle (acetaminophen, celecoxib, and methocarbamol) was initiated intravenously in the recovery room, after which the patient was given oral agents on postoperative day 1.
- The primary outcome measure was inpatient and discharge opioid volume in oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) across the three pathways.
TAKEAWAY:
- Opioid use significantly decreased with each sequential pathway refinement.
- For inpatients, total OME decreased by more than 55% across the pathways from a median of 290 mg to 184 mg and finally to 129 mg (P < .001).
- Median discharge OME dropped from 150 mg to 25 mg and then to 0 mg across the pathways (P < .001).
- With the final version of the pathway, more than half of patients (52.5%) had opioid-free discharges, compared with only 7.2% in the first pathway. Pain scores remained stable at 3 or less; the number of postdischarge refill requests was unchanged.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings suggest that reduction of postoperative opioid dissemination through opioid-free discharge after pancreatectomy and other major cancer operations may be realistic and feasible by following this no-cost blueprint,” the authors concluded. In an accompanying editorial, Melissa Hogg, MD, from NorthShore University Health System in Evanston, Ill., said the “study inspired me to update our institution’s [early recovery after surgery] protocol to reduce and eliminate opioid prescriptions.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ching-Wei D. Tzeng, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. It was published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated the opioid protocol at a single center, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The researchers did not receive patient feedback on pain control expectations or postoperative quality of life.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Tzeng reported receiving consultant fees and a sponsored research agreement from PanTher outside the submitted work. Dr. Hogg reported receiving training and travel funds from Intuitive Money. No other disclosures or outside funding were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Implementing a post-surgery protocol that has undergone incremental changes over time significantly reduced inpatient and discharge opioid volumes while maintaining pain control after pancreatic cancer surgery.
METHODOLOGY:
- To reduce opioid dependence, misuse, and diversion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines emphasize strategies to minimize opioid prescribing for managing pain. Still, opioid prescribing following surgery remains common practice.
- In the current study,
- The study evaluated three sequential protocols implemented over a period of about 6 years, from 2016 to 2022.
- In the final version, a standardized three-drug nonopioid bundle (acetaminophen, celecoxib, and methocarbamol) was initiated intravenously in the recovery room, after which the patient was given oral agents on postoperative day 1.
- The primary outcome measure was inpatient and discharge opioid volume in oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) across the three pathways.
TAKEAWAY:
- Opioid use significantly decreased with each sequential pathway refinement.
- For inpatients, total OME decreased by more than 55% across the pathways from a median of 290 mg to 184 mg and finally to 129 mg (P < .001).
- Median discharge OME dropped from 150 mg to 25 mg and then to 0 mg across the pathways (P < .001).
- With the final version of the pathway, more than half of patients (52.5%) had opioid-free discharges, compared with only 7.2% in the first pathway. Pain scores remained stable at 3 or less; the number of postdischarge refill requests was unchanged.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings suggest that reduction of postoperative opioid dissemination through opioid-free discharge after pancreatectomy and other major cancer operations may be realistic and feasible by following this no-cost blueprint,” the authors concluded. In an accompanying editorial, Melissa Hogg, MD, from NorthShore University Health System in Evanston, Ill., said the “study inspired me to update our institution’s [early recovery after surgery] protocol to reduce and eliminate opioid prescriptions.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ching-Wei D. Tzeng, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. It was published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated the opioid protocol at a single center, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The researchers did not receive patient feedback on pain control expectations or postoperative quality of life.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Tzeng reported receiving consultant fees and a sponsored research agreement from PanTher outside the submitted work. Dr. Hogg reported receiving training and travel funds from Intuitive Money. No other disclosures or outside funding were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Implementing a post-surgery protocol that has undergone incremental changes over time significantly reduced inpatient and discharge opioid volumes while maintaining pain control after pancreatic cancer surgery.
METHODOLOGY:
- To reduce opioid dependence, misuse, and diversion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines emphasize strategies to minimize opioid prescribing for managing pain. Still, opioid prescribing following surgery remains common practice.
- In the current study,
- The study evaluated three sequential protocols implemented over a period of about 6 years, from 2016 to 2022.
- In the final version, a standardized three-drug nonopioid bundle (acetaminophen, celecoxib, and methocarbamol) was initiated intravenously in the recovery room, after which the patient was given oral agents on postoperative day 1.
- The primary outcome measure was inpatient and discharge opioid volume in oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) across the three pathways.
TAKEAWAY:
- Opioid use significantly decreased with each sequential pathway refinement.
- For inpatients, total OME decreased by more than 55% across the pathways from a median of 290 mg to 184 mg and finally to 129 mg (P < .001).
- Median discharge OME dropped from 150 mg to 25 mg and then to 0 mg across the pathways (P < .001).
- With the final version of the pathway, more than half of patients (52.5%) had opioid-free discharges, compared with only 7.2% in the first pathway. Pain scores remained stable at 3 or less; the number of postdischarge refill requests was unchanged.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings suggest that reduction of postoperative opioid dissemination through opioid-free discharge after pancreatectomy and other major cancer operations may be realistic and feasible by following this no-cost blueprint,” the authors concluded. In an accompanying editorial, Melissa Hogg, MD, from NorthShore University Health System in Evanston, Ill., said the “study inspired me to update our institution’s [early recovery after surgery] protocol to reduce and eliminate opioid prescriptions.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ching-Wei D. Tzeng, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. It was published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated the opioid protocol at a single center, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The researchers did not receive patient feedback on pain control expectations or postoperative quality of life.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Tzeng reported receiving consultant fees and a sponsored research agreement from PanTher outside the submitted work. Dr. Hogg reported receiving training and travel funds from Intuitive Money. No other disclosures or outside funding were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA SURGERY
‘Treatment holiday’ in prostate cancer with tailored dosing
and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.
The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.
The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
Although clinical trials have demonstrated that 177Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.
Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received 177Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.
In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 177Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving 177Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.
The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of 177Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with 177Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and 177Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.
The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on 177Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.
Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.
Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.
Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.
Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.
“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with 177Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.
Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.
The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.
The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
Although clinical trials have demonstrated that 177Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.
Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received 177Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.
In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 177Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving 177Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.
The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of 177Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with 177Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and 177Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.
The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on 177Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.
Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.
Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.
Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.
Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.
“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with 177Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.
Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.
The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.
The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
Although clinical trials have demonstrated that 177Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.
Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received 177Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.
In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 177Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving 177Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.
The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of 177Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with 177Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and 177Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.
The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on 177Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.
Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.
Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.
Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.
Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.
“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with 177Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.
Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SNMMI 2023
Does timing of surgery affect rectal cancer outcomes?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A total of 1,506 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by total mesorectal excision were divided into three groups based on the time interval between therapy and surgery: short (8 weeks), intermediate (> 8 to 12 weeks), and long (> 12 weeks).
- The primary outcome was pathologic complete response, and secondary outcomes included other histopathologic results, perioperative events, and survival outcomes.
- Median follow-up was 33 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, a pathologic complete response was observed in 255 patients (17.2%).
- Compared with the intermediate interval (reference) group, investigators found no association between time interval and pathologic complete response in the short-interval (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-1.01) or long-interval groups (OR, 1.07; P = .70).
- A long interval was significantly associated with a lower risk of a bad response as measured by tumor regression grade 2-3, compared with the reference category (OR, 0.47), but a higher risk of minor postoperative complications (OR, 1.43), conversion to open surgery (OR, 3.14), and longer operative time.
- The long-interval group was associated with a significantly reduced risk of systemic recurrence, compared with the reference group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .04), but not improved overall survival (HR, 1.38; P = .11) or locoregional recurrence (HR, 0.53; P = .18); no significant findings occurred for the short versus intermediate group.
IN PRACTICE:
“Findings suggest that delaying surgery may improve tumor regression and decrease risk of distant metastasis but increase surgical complexity,” the authors conclude. “Nonetheless, the reported improvements in tumor regression and systemic recurrence in the long-interval group were unexpectedly not followed by improved [overall survival].”
SOURCE:
F. Borja de Lacy, MD, PhD, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, led the study, published online in JAMA Surgery, with an accompanying editorial.
LIMITATIONS:
- The study’s main limitation was its retrospective design, which could have resulted in missing or inconsistent data, as well as the short follow-up time.
- Decisions about time interval were based more on professional preference rather than specific tumor characteristics.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. de Lacy has reported no relevant financial relationships. No outside funding source was disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A total of 1,506 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by total mesorectal excision were divided into three groups based on the time interval between therapy and surgery: short (8 weeks), intermediate (> 8 to 12 weeks), and long (> 12 weeks).
- The primary outcome was pathologic complete response, and secondary outcomes included other histopathologic results, perioperative events, and survival outcomes.
- Median follow-up was 33 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, a pathologic complete response was observed in 255 patients (17.2%).
- Compared with the intermediate interval (reference) group, investigators found no association between time interval and pathologic complete response in the short-interval (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-1.01) or long-interval groups (OR, 1.07; P = .70).
- A long interval was significantly associated with a lower risk of a bad response as measured by tumor regression grade 2-3, compared with the reference category (OR, 0.47), but a higher risk of minor postoperative complications (OR, 1.43), conversion to open surgery (OR, 3.14), and longer operative time.
- The long-interval group was associated with a significantly reduced risk of systemic recurrence, compared with the reference group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .04), but not improved overall survival (HR, 1.38; P = .11) or locoregional recurrence (HR, 0.53; P = .18); no significant findings occurred for the short versus intermediate group.
IN PRACTICE:
“Findings suggest that delaying surgery may improve tumor regression and decrease risk of distant metastasis but increase surgical complexity,” the authors conclude. “Nonetheless, the reported improvements in tumor regression and systemic recurrence in the long-interval group were unexpectedly not followed by improved [overall survival].”
SOURCE:
F. Borja de Lacy, MD, PhD, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, led the study, published online in JAMA Surgery, with an accompanying editorial.
LIMITATIONS:
- The study’s main limitation was its retrospective design, which could have resulted in missing or inconsistent data, as well as the short follow-up time.
- Decisions about time interval were based more on professional preference rather than specific tumor characteristics.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. de Lacy has reported no relevant financial relationships. No outside funding source was disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A total of 1,506 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by total mesorectal excision were divided into three groups based on the time interval between therapy and surgery: short (8 weeks), intermediate (> 8 to 12 weeks), and long (> 12 weeks).
- The primary outcome was pathologic complete response, and secondary outcomes included other histopathologic results, perioperative events, and survival outcomes.
- Median follow-up was 33 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, a pathologic complete response was observed in 255 patients (17.2%).
- Compared with the intermediate interval (reference) group, investigators found no association between time interval and pathologic complete response in the short-interval (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-1.01) or long-interval groups (OR, 1.07; P = .70).
- A long interval was significantly associated with a lower risk of a bad response as measured by tumor regression grade 2-3, compared with the reference category (OR, 0.47), but a higher risk of minor postoperative complications (OR, 1.43), conversion to open surgery (OR, 3.14), and longer operative time.
- The long-interval group was associated with a significantly reduced risk of systemic recurrence, compared with the reference group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .04), but not improved overall survival (HR, 1.38; P = .11) or locoregional recurrence (HR, 0.53; P = .18); no significant findings occurred for the short versus intermediate group.
IN PRACTICE:
“Findings suggest that delaying surgery may improve tumor regression and decrease risk of distant metastasis but increase surgical complexity,” the authors conclude. “Nonetheless, the reported improvements in tumor regression and systemic recurrence in the long-interval group were unexpectedly not followed by improved [overall survival].”
SOURCE:
F. Borja de Lacy, MD, PhD, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, led the study, published online in JAMA Surgery, with an accompanying editorial.
LIMITATIONS:
- The study’s main limitation was its retrospective design, which could have resulted in missing or inconsistent data, as well as the short follow-up time.
- Decisions about time interval were based more on professional preference rather than specific tumor characteristics.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. de Lacy has reported no relevant financial relationships. No outside funding source was disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After Yusimry’s steep discount, little clarity on future adalimumab biosimilar pricing
Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira, enjoyed a long run as one of the world’s best-selling medicines. But its 20-year, competition-free period has ended, and despite its best efforts to delay their arrival, drug manufacturer AbbVie now faces increasing competition from biosimilars entering the marketplace.
But one biosimilar about to be launched may be something of a game changer. Coherus BioSciences has announced plans to market its biosimilar Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh) at a cost of $995 for two autoinjectors. This represents an approximate 85% discount over Humira’s sale list price of $6922.
This price, however, is slated to plunge even further as Coherus has also revealed that it will work with the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) to offer an even lower price. When Yusimry launches in July, it will sell for about $579 for two autoinjectors, making it the lowest-priced adalimumab biosimilar on the market.
“Coherus and Cost Plus Drug Company share a common mission, to increase access to high-quality medicine for patients at an affordable price,” said Dennis Lanfear, MBA, president, CEO and chairman of Coherus. “Mark Cuban and his team offer innovative solutions to health care problems, and Coherus is also a highly innovative company focused on unmet patient needs.”
He noted that, with adalimumab biosimilar pricing, this translates to a low list price approach. “We are pleased that Yusimry will be a part of that, as the first biologic they carry,” Mr. Lanfear said.
MCCPDC prices are based on the cost of ingredients and manufacturing plus 15% margin, a $3 pharmacy dispensing fee, and a $5 shipping fee. The company has expanded its inventory from 100 generics to more than 350 medications since it launched in January 2022. While MCCPDC is primarily directed to people who are paying cash for drugs, it does take insurance from select plans. And even for people who are covered by other insurers, the cost of drugs from Mr. Cuban’s company may be less than their out-of-pocket costs if they did go through their payer.
The low pricing of Yusimry is welcome, said Marcus Snow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, but he pointed out that it is still a very expensive drug. “For patients who can’t afford Humira due to poor insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket costs, it is a welcome option. But it’s also unclear how many patients who lack adequate health insurance coverage can afford to pay $579 a month out of their own pockets.”
The biosimilars are coming
By early December 2022, the Food and Drug Administration had approved seven Humira biosimilars, and Amgen launched the first biosimilar to come on the market, Amjevita, soon afterward. By July 2023, half a dozen more are expected to enter the marketplace, said Steven Horvitz, managing director of EMC Analytics Group, a pharmaceutical research firm.
Mr. Horvitz agrees that the system is out of control, but it is unclear how much of an effect the low price tag on the Coherus product will have. “Some insurers may say, ‘we want the lowest price, and we don’t care about rebates,’ and will go with it,” he said. “PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are all about economics, so we have to see how many of their major clients will ask for the lowest price.”
Amgen has more or less followed the status quo on pricing for its biosimilar, but with a twist. It›s being offered at two different prices: $85,494 a year, which is only a 5% discount from Humira’s list price, or at $40,497 a year, a 55% discount. However, to date, the lower price has generally not been granted favorable formulary placement by PBMs. The plans that adopt the higher-priced biosimilar will get bigger rebates, but patients with coinsurance and deductibles will pay more out of pocket.
It is yet unknown how the pricing on Yusimry will affect the biosimilars ready to launch. “Will it give them pause for thought or not make any difference?” Mr. Horvitz said. “The companies do not reveal their pricing before the fact, so we have to wait and see.”
Large PBMs have not jumped at the opportunity to offer the Coherus biosimilar, but SmithRx, which bills itself as “next-generation pharmacy benefits management,” announced that it will offer Yusimry to its members at a discount of more than 90%.
“Unlike traditional PBMs, SmithRx prioritizes transparency and up-front cost savings. Humira is often an employer’s top drug expense so offering a low-cost alternative will have significant impact,” Jake Frenz, CEO and founder of SmithRx, said in a statement. “We’re excited to work with Cost Plus Drugs to bring this biosimilar to our members – and significantly reduce costs for them and their employers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira, enjoyed a long run as one of the world’s best-selling medicines. But its 20-year, competition-free period has ended, and despite its best efforts to delay their arrival, drug manufacturer AbbVie now faces increasing competition from biosimilars entering the marketplace.
But one biosimilar about to be launched may be something of a game changer. Coherus BioSciences has announced plans to market its biosimilar Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh) at a cost of $995 for two autoinjectors. This represents an approximate 85% discount over Humira’s sale list price of $6922.
This price, however, is slated to plunge even further as Coherus has also revealed that it will work with the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) to offer an even lower price. When Yusimry launches in July, it will sell for about $579 for two autoinjectors, making it the lowest-priced adalimumab biosimilar on the market.
“Coherus and Cost Plus Drug Company share a common mission, to increase access to high-quality medicine for patients at an affordable price,” said Dennis Lanfear, MBA, president, CEO and chairman of Coherus. “Mark Cuban and his team offer innovative solutions to health care problems, and Coherus is also a highly innovative company focused on unmet patient needs.”
He noted that, with adalimumab biosimilar pricing, this translates to a low list price approach. “We are pleased that Yusimry will be a part of that, as the first biologic they carry,” Mr. Lanfear said.
MCCPDC prices are based on the cost of ingredients and manufacturing plus 15% margin, a $3 pharmacy dispensing fee, and a $5 shipping fee. The company has expanded its inventory from 100 generics to more than 350 medications since it launched in January 2022. While MCCPDC is primarily directed to people who are paying cash for drugs, it does take insurance from select plans. And even for people who are covered by other insurers, the cost of drugs from Mr. Cuban’s company may be less than their out-of-pocket costs if they did go through their payer.
The low pricing of Yusimry is welcome, said Marcus Snow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, but he pointed out that it is still a very expensive drug. “For patients who can’t afford Humira due to poor insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket costs, it is a welcome option. But it’s also unclear how many patients who lack adequate health insurance coverage can afford to pay $579 a month out of their own pockets.”
The biosimilars are coming
By early December 2022, the Food and Drug Administration had approved seven Humira biosimilars, and Amgen launched the first biosimilar to come on the market, Amjevita, soon afterward. By July 2023, half a dozen more are expected to enter the marketplace, said Steven Horvitz, managing director of EMC Analytics Group, a pharmaceutical research firm.
Mr. Horvitz agrees that the system is out of control, but it is unclear how much of an effect the low price tag on the Coherus product will have. “Some insurers may say, ‘we want the lowest price, and we don’t care about rebates,’ and will go with it,” he said. “PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are all about economics, so we have to see how many of their major clients will ask for the lowest price.”
Amgen has more or less followed the status quo on pricing for its biosimilar, but with a twist. It›s being offered at two different prices: $85,494 a year, which is only a 5% discount from Humira’s list price, or at $40,497 a year, a 55% discount. However, to date, the lower price has generally not been granted favorable formulary placement by PBMs. The plans that adopt the higher-priced biosimilar will get bigger rebates, but patients with coinsurance and deductibles will pay more out of pocket.
It is yet unknown how the pricing on Yusimry will affect the biosimilars ready to launch. “Will it give them pause for thought or not make any difference?” Mr. Horvitz said. “The companies do not reveal their pricing before the fact, so we have to wait and see.”
Large PBMs have not jumped at the opportunity to offer the Coherus biosimilar, but SmithRx, which bills itself as “next-generation pharmacy benefits management,” announced that it will offer Yusimry to its members at a discount of more than 90%.
“Unlike traditional PBMs, SmithRx prioritizes transparency and up-front cost savings. Humira is often an employer’s top drug expense so offering a low-cost alternative will have significant impact,” Jake Frenz, CEO and founder of SmithRx, said in a statement. “We’re excited to work with Cost Plus Drugs to bring this biosimilar to our members – and significantly reduce costs for them and their employers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira, enjoyed a long run as one of the world’s best-selling medicines. But its 20-year, competition-free period has ended, and despite its best efforts to delay their arrival, drug manufacturer AbbVie now faces increasing competition from biosimilars entering the marketplace.
But one biosimilar about to be launched may be something of a game changer. Coherus BioSciences has announced plans to market its biosimilar Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh) at a cost of $995 for two autoinjectors. This represents an approximate 85% discount over Humira’s sale list price of $6922.
This price, however, is slated to plunge even further as Coherus has also revealed that it will work with the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) to offer an even lower price. When Yusimry launches in July, it will sell for about $579 for two autoinjectors, making it the lowest-priced adalimumab biosimilar on the market.
“Coherus and Cost Plus Drug Company share a common mission, to increase access to high-quality medicine for patients at an affordable price,” said Dennis Lanfear, MBA, president, CEO and chairman of Coherus. “Mark Cuban and his team offer innovative solutions to health care problems, and Coherus is also a highly innovative company focused on unmet patient needs.”
He noted that, with adalimumab biosimilar pricing, this translates to a low list price approach. “We are pleased that Yusimry will be a part of that, as the first biologic they carry,” Mr. Lanfear said.
MCCPDC prices are based on the cost of ingredients and manufacturing plus 15% margin, a $3 pharmacy dispensing fee, and a $5 shipping fee. The company has expanded its inventory from 100 generics to more than 350 medications since it launched in January 2022. While MCCPDC is primarily directed to people who are paying cash for drugs, it does take insurance from select plans. And even for people who are covered by other insurers, the cost of drugs from Mr. Cuban’s company may be less than their out-of-pocket costs if they did go through their payer.
The low pricing of Yusimry is welcome, said Marcus Snow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, but he pointed out that it is still a very expensive drug. “For patients who can’t afford Humira due to poor insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket costs, it is a welcome option. But it’s also unclear how many patients who lack adequate health insurance coverage can afford to pay $579 a month out of their own pockets.”
The biosimilars are coming
By early December 2022, the Food and Drug Administration had approved seven Humira biosimilars, and Amgen launched the first biosimilar to come on the market, Amjevita, soon afterward. By July 2023, half a dozen more are expected to enter the marketplace, said Steven Horvitz, managing director of EMC Analytics Group, a pharmaceutical research firm.
Mr. Horvitz agrees that the system is out of control, but it is unclear how much of an effect the low price tag on the Coherus product will have. “Some insurers may say, ‘we want the lowest price, and we don’t care about rebates,’ and will go with it,” he said. “PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are all about economics, so we have to see how many of their major clients will ask for the lowest price.”
Amgen has more or less followed the status quo on pricing for its biosimilar, but with a twist. It›s being offered at two different prices: $85,494 a year, which is only a 5% discount from Humira’s list price, or at $40,497 a year, a 55% discount. However, to date, the lower price has generally not been granted favorable formulary placement by PBMs. The plans that adopt the higher-priced biosimilar will get bigger rebates, but patients with coinsurance and deductibles will pay more out of pocket.
It is yet unknown how the pricing on Yusimry will affect the biosimilars ready to launch. “Will it give them pause for thought or not make any difference?” Mr. Horvitz said. “The companies do not reveal their pricing before the fact, so we have to wait and see.”
Large PBMs have not jumped at the opportunity to offer the Coherus biosimilar, but SmithRx, which bills itself as “next-generation pharmacy benefits management,” announced that it will offer Yusimry to its members at a discount of more than 90%.
“Unlike traditional PBMs, SmithRx prioritizes transparency and up-front cost savings. Humira is often an employer’s top drug expense so offering a low-cost alternative will have significant impact,” Jake Frenz, CEO and founder of SmithRx, said in a statement. “We’re excited to work with Cost Plus Drugs to bring this biosimilar to our members – and significantly reduce costs for them and their employers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Drug shortages in U.S. at 10-year high
Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.
“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”
As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders, antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.
Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.
Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.
The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.
Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.
In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
Two decades of shortages
Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.
The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.
A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.
Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production.
“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.
“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”
As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders, antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.
Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.
Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.
The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.
Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.
In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
Two decades of shortages
Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.
The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.
A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.
Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production.
“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.
“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”
As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders, antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.
Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.
Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.
The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.
Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.
In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
Two decades of shortages
Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.
The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.
A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.
Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production.
“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Teledermatology follow-up after Mohs surgery gets a thumbs up from patients
SEATTLE – The , according to new findings.
In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.
“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”
The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.
Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.
“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.
The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.
There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).
“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”
In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.
Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”
The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.
On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.
Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”
There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”
“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”
Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.
“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The , according to new findings.
In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.
“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”
The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.
Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.
“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.
The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.
There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).
“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”
In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.
Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”
The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.
On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.
Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”
There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”
“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”
Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.
“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The , according to new findings.
In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.
“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”
The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.
Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.
“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.
The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.
There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).
“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”
In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.
Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”
The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.
On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.
Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”
There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”
“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”
Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.
“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACMS 2023
Mohs surgery improves survival in early-stage Merkel cell carcinoma
SEATTLE – The use of
Compared with conventional wide local excision, survival was significantly improved among patients treated with Mohs, and a subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit remained for patients with risk factors.
“At 10 years, overall survival was about 21% higher for those treated with Mohs surgery versus those treated with conventional surgery,” said lead author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, a dermatology resident at the New York University School of Medicine. “On multivariable analysis, which controlled for tumor and patient factors, Mohs was associated with an over 40% reduction in the hazard for death.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
MCC is a rare, aggressive, neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy that carries a high mortality rate. The estimated 5-year survival for patients with localized disease is about 50%, Dr. Cheraghlou noted. “That extrapolates to about 55% for T1 tumors and down to about 30% for T4 tumors.”
Although it’s considered to be a rare cancer, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising, and in fact it doubled during the period from the 1990s to the 2010s.
Most commonly treated with wide local excision with or without adjuvant radiation therapy, Mohs as monotherapy may offer an alternative treatment option for patients with MCC. It is generally accepted that the optimal treatment for tumors without regional lymph node involvement is surgical, but the data regarding the optimal surgical approach are mixed. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that either Mohs surgery or wide local excision can be used.
“However, these guidelines do not indicate a preference for one modality over the other,” said Dr. Cheraghlou, “and present them as interchangeable treatment options.”
A growing body of literature supports Mohs surgery for many types of rare tumors, including MCC. For example, as previously reported at the 2021 ACMS meeting, one study found that Mohs surgery compared favorably with the standard treatment approach when it came to recurrence rates for patients with MCC. The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for patients with stage I disease and 68.6% for patients with stage IIa. These rates were comparable with rates for historical control patients who were treated with wide local excision, with or without radiation (81%-87% for stage I disease, and 63%-67% for stage II).
Study details
In the current study, Dr. Cheraghlou and colleagues sought to evaluate the association of the type of surgical approach with patient survival after excision of early-stage MCC. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to identify cases of MCC with T1/T2 tumors. A total of 2,313 patients who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 with pathologically confirmed negative lymph node involvement and who were treated with Mohs surgery or wide lesion excision were included in the analysis.
“About 90% were T1 tumors, about 40% were located on the head and neck, and the vast majority – about 60% – were treated with wide local excision,” he explained. “Only about 5% received Mohs surgery for treatment of the primary tumor.”
But when the researchers assessed survival outcomes, they found that treatment with Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved overall survival.
The unadjusted 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates for patients treated with Mohs was 87.4% (SE: 3.4%), 84.5% (SE: 3.9%), and 81.8% (SE: 4.6%), respectively, while for wide lesion excision, the rates were 86.1% (SE: 0.9%), 76.9% (SE: 1.2%), and 60.9% (SE: 2.0%), respectively.
For patients who underwent treatment with narrow margin excision, survival rates were similar as for those treated with wide lesion excision, with 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 84.8% (SE: 1.4%), 78.3% (SE: 1.7%), and 60.8% (SE: 3.6%), respectively.
On multivariable survival analysis, Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with wide lesion excision (hazard ratio, 0.594; P = .038). This was also true after multivariable analysis for patients who had one or more NCCN risk factors, for whom improved survival was also seen with Mohs (HR, 0.530; P = .026).
The results did not differ after a sensitivity analysis that included T3 and T4 tumors.
Given that the use of Mohs was so infrequent, compared with standard surgery, the researchers investigated the factors that were associated with the use of Mohs. High-volume MCC centers were significantly more likely to utilize Mohs than wide lesion excision (odds ratio, 1.993; P < .001), compared with other facilities.
“This study has important implications going forward,” Dr. Cheraghlou concluded. “We think it’s important how few patients were treated with Mohs for Merkel cell, and it was slightly more likely to happen in a high-volume center.”
The reasoning for that may be that high-volume centers are more likely to have a surgeon trained to perform Mohs surgery for MCC. “Or perhaps they are more attuned to the benefits of this procedure,” he said. “We can’t tell that from our data, but its notable that it’s such a small proportion of patients – especially when we consider that it is associated with improved survival for the patients who receive it.”
He added that efforts to increase the utilization of Mohs may yield improved local control and overall survival for these patients. “And perhaps with more data, future versions of guidelines may indicate a preference for Mohs over conventional incisions.”
No changes to current practice
Asked to comment on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that while the results are intriguing, they must be interpreted with caution.
“This study was retrospective in nature, and unrecognized biases can influence results,” he said. “Additionally, given the relative rarity of Merkel cell carcinoma, the sample size is expectantly small.”
But importantly, Dr. Olszanski emphasized, Mohs may more often have been recommended for patients with lesions that appear less aggressive. “Many patients undergoing wide lesion excision may have been referred by Mohs surgeons secondary to features or characteristics of lesions which were worrisome,” he explained. “The results of this study do not opine on why Mohs would impact overall survival over wide lesion excision, a point worthy of consideration. Presently, both modalities can be considered for patients with T1/T2 MCC. The results of this study should not change current practice and would lend themselves to a more robust study.”
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Cheraghlou has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Olszanski has received financial support from Merck and BMS for participated on advisory boards.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The use of
Compared with conventional wide local excision, survival was significantly improved among patients treated with Mohs, and a subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit remained for patients with risk factors.
“At 10 years, overall survival was about 21% higher for those treated with Mohs surgery versus those treated with conventional surgery,” said lead author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, a dermatology resident at the New York University School of Medicine. “On multivariable analysis, which controlled for tumor and patient factors, Mohs was associated with an over 40% reduction in the hazard for death.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
MCC is a rare, aggressive, neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy that carries a high mortality rate. The estimated 5-year survival for patients with localized disease is about 50%, Dr. Cheraghlou noted. “That extrapolates to about 55% for T1 tumors and down to about 30% for T4 tumors.”
Although it’s considered to be a rare cancer, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising, and in fact it doubled during the period from the 1990s to the 2010s.
Most commonly treated with wide local excision with or without adjuvant radiation therapy, Mohs as monotherapy may offer an alternative treatment option for patients with MCC. It is generally accepted that the optimal treatment for tumors without regional lymph node involvement is surgical, but the data regarding the optimal surgical approach are mixed. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that either Mohs surgery or wide local excision can be used.
“However, these guidelines do not indicate a preference for one modality over the other,” said Dr. Cheraghlou, “and present them as interchangeable treatment options.”
A growing body of literature supports Mohs surgery for many types of rare tumors, including MCC. For example, as previously reported at the 2021 ACMS meeting, one study found that Mohs surgery compared favorably with the standard treatment approach when it came to recurrence rates for patients with MCC. The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for patients with stage I disease and 68.6% for patients with stage IIa. These rates were comparable with rates for historical control patients who were treated with wide local excision, with or without radiation (81%-87% for stage I disease, and 63%-67% for stage II).
Study details
In the current study, Dr. Cheraghlou and colleagues sought to evaluate the association of the type of surgical approach with patient survival after excision of early-stage MCC. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to identify cases of MCC with T1/T2 tumors. A total of 2,313 patients who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 with pathologically confirmed negative lymph node involvement and who were treated with Mohs surgery or wide lesion excision were included in the analysis.
“About 90% were T1 tumors, about 40% were located on the head and neck, and the vast majority – about 60% – were treated with wide local excision,” he explained. “Only about 5% received Mohs surgery for treatment of the primary tumor.”
But when the researchers assessed survival outcomes, they found that treatment with Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved overall survival.
The unadjusted 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates for patients treated with Mohs was 87.4% (SE: 3.4%), 84.5% (SE: 3.9%), and 81.8% (SE: 4.6%), respectively, while for wide lesion excision, the rates were 86.1% (SE: 0.9%), 76.9% (SE: 1.2%), and 60.9% (SE: 2.0%), respectively.
For patients who underwent treatment with narrow margin excision, survival rates were similar as for those treated with wide lesion excision, with 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 84.8% (SE: 1.4%), 78.3% (SE: 1.7%), and 60.8% (SE: 3.6%), respectively.
On multivariable survival analysis, Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with wide lesion excision (hazard ratio, 0.594; P = .038). This was also true after multivariable analysis for patients who had one or more NCCN risk factors, for whom improved survival was also seen with Mohs (HR, 0.530; P = .026).
The results did not differ after a sensitivity analysis that included T3 and T4 tumors.
Given that the use of Mohs was so infrequent, compared with standard surgery, the researchers investigated the factors that were associated with the use of Mohs. High-volume MCC centers were significantly more likely to utilize Mohs than wide lesion excision (odds ratio, 1.993; P < .001), compared with other facilities.
“This study has important implications going forward,” Dr. Cheraghlou concluded. “We think it’s important how few patients were treated with Mohs for Merkel cell, and it was slightly more likely to happen in a high-volume center.”
The reasoning for that may be that high-volume centers are more likely to have a surgeon trained to perform Mohs surgery for MCC. “Or perhaps they are more attuned to the benefits of this procedure,” he said. “We can’t tell that from our data, but its notable that it’s such a small proportion of patients – especially when we consider that it is associated with improved survival for the patients who receive it.”
He added that efforts to increase the utilization of Mohs may yield improved local control and overall survival for these patients. “And perhaps with more data, future versions of guidelines may indicate a preference for Mohs over conventional incisions.”
No changes to current practice
Asked to comment on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that while the results are intriguing, they must be interpreted with caution.
“This study was retrospective in nature, and unrecognized biases can influence results,” he said. “Additionally, given the relative rarity of Merkel cell carcinoma, the sample size is expectantly small.”
But importantly, Dr. Olszanski emphasized, Mohs may more often have been recommended for patients with lesions that appear less aggressive. “Many patients undergoing wide lesion excision may have been referred by Mohs surgeons secondary to features or characteristics of lesions which were worrisome,” he explained. “The results of this study do not opine on why Mohs would impact overall survival over wide lesion excision, a point worthy of consideration. Presently, both modalities can be considered for patients with T1/T2 MCC. The results of this study should not change current practice and would lend themselves to a more robust study.”
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Cheraghlou has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Olszanski has received financial support from Merck and BMS for participated on advisory boards.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The use of
Compared with conventional wide local excision, survival was significantly improved among patients treated with Mohs, and a subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit remained for patients with risk factors.
“At 10 years, overall survival was about 21% higher for those treated with Mohs surgery versus those treated with conventional surgery,” said lead author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, a dermatology resident at the New York University School of Medicine. “On multivariable analysis, which controlled for tumor and patient factors, Mohs was associated with an over 40% reduction in the hazard for death.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
MCC is a rare, aggressive, neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy that carries a high mortality rate. The estimated 5-year survival for patients with localized disease is about 50%, Dr. Cheraghlou noted. “That extrapolates to about 55% for T1 tumors and down to about 30% for T4 tumors.”
Although it’s considered to be a rare cancer, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising, and in fact it doubled during the period from the 1990s to the 2010s.
Most commonly treated with wide local excision with or without adjuvant radiation therapy, Mohs as monotherapy may offer an alternative treatment option for patients with MCC. It is generally accepted that the optimal treatment for tumors without regional lymph node involvement is surgical, but the data regarding the optimal surgical approach are mixed. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that either Mohs surgery or wide local excision can be used.
“However, these guidelines do not indicate a preference for one modality over the other,” said Dr. Cheraghlou, “and present them as interchangeable treatment options.”
A growing body of literature supports Mohs surgery for many types of rare tumors, including MCC. For example, as previously reported at the 2021 ACMS meeting, one study found that Mohs surgery compared favorably with the standard treatment approach when it came to recurrence rates for patients with MCC. The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for patients with stage I disease and 68.6% for patients with stage IIa. These rates were comparable with rates for historical control patients who were treated with wide local excision, with or without radiation (81%-87% for stage I disease, and 63%-67% for stage II).
Study details
In the current study, Dr. Cheraghlou and colleagues sought to evaluate the association of the type of surgical approach with patient survival after excision of early-stage MCC. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to identify cases of MCC with T1/T2 tumors. A total of 2,313 patients who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 with pathologically confirmed negative lymph node involvement and who were treated with Mohs surgery or wide lesion excision were included in the analysis.
“About 90% were T1 tumors, about 40% were located on the head and neck, and the vast majority – about 60% – were treated with wide local excision,” he explained. “Only about 5% received Mohs surgery for treatment of the primary tumor.”
But when the researchers assessed survival outcomes, they found that treatment with Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved overall survival.
The unadjusted 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates for patients treated with Mohs was 87.4% (SE: 3.4%), 84.5% (SE: 3.9%), and 81.8% (SE: 4.6%), respectively, while for wide lesion excision, the rates were 86.1% (SE: 0.9%), 76.9% (SE: 1.2%), and 60.9% (SE: 2.0%), respectively.
For patients who underwent treatment with narrow margin excision, survival rates were similar as for those treated with wide lesion excision, with 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 84.8% (SE: 1.4%), 78.3% (SE: 1.7%), and 60.8% (SE: 3.6%), respectively.
On multivariable survival analysis, Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with wide lesion excision (hazard ratio, 0.594; P = .038). This was also true after multivariable analysis for patients who had one or more NCCN risk factors, for whom improved survival was also seen with Mohs (HR, 0.530; P = .026).
The results did not differ after a sensitivity analysis that included T3 and T4 tumors.
Given that the use of Mohs was so infrequent, compared with standard surgery, the researchers investigated the factors that were associated with the use of Mohs. High-volume MCC centers were significantly more likely to utilize Mohs than wide lesion excision (odds ratio, 1.993; P < .001), compared with other facilities.
“This study has important implications going forward,” Dr. Cheraghlou concluded. “We think it’s important how few patients were treated with Mohs for Merkel cell, and it was slightly more likely to happen in a high-volume center.”
The reasoning for that may be that high-volume centers are more likely to have a surgeon trained to perform Mohs surgery for MCC. “Or perhaps they are more attuned to the benefits of this procedure,” he said. “We can’t tell that from our data, but its notable that it’s such a small proportion of patients – especially when we consider that it is associated with improved survival for the patients who receive it.”
He added that efforts to increase the utilization of Mohs may yield improved local control and overall survival for these patients. “And perhaps with more data, future versions of guidelines may indicate a preference for Mohs over conventional incisions.”
No changes to current practice
Asked to comment on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that while the results are intriguing, they must be interpreted with caution.
“This study was retrospective in nature, and unrecognized biases can influence results,” he said. “Additionally, given the relative rarity of Merkel cell carcinoma, the sample size is expectantly small.”
But importantly, Dr. Olszanski emphasized, Mohs may more often have been recommended for patients with lesions that appear less aggressive. “Many patients undergoing wide lesion excision may have been referred by Mohs surgeons secondary to features or characteristics of lesions which were worrisome,” he explained. “The results of this study do not opine on why Mohs would impact overall survival over wide lesion excision, a point worthy of consideration. Presently, both modalities can be considered for patients with T1/T2 MCC. The results of this study should not change current practice and would lend themselves to a more robust study.”
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Cheraghlou has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Olszanski has received financial support from Merck and BMS for participated on advisory boards.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACMS 2023
First guideline for treating oligometastatic NSCLC
The result of a joint effort by the American Society for Radiation Oncology and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, the guidelines emphasizes the need for a multidisciplinary team approach to guide treatment decisions for oligometastatic disease.
Historically, treatment for oligometastatic NSCLC has involved systemic therapy including chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and local therapy was given only for palliation and symptom relief. But increasing evidence has demonstrated that definitive local therapy may have an additional role in controlling tumor growth and improving survival outcomes, and an increasing number of radiation oncologists and multidisciplinary teams are now using local therapy beyond palliative care for these patients, the authors noted.
“Oligometastatic NSCLC is a phase in lung cancer development that may offer us new opportunities to improve patient outcomes, because it typically is more treatable than widely metastatic cancer,” said Puneeth Iyengar, MD, PhD, cochair of the guideline task force and an associate professor of radiation oncology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
“The research on local therapy for oligometastatic cancer is still at a relatively early stage, but we already see indicators of potential benefits for patients. Adding local therapy to systemic therapy may lead to more durable cancer control, potentially improving progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life,” he said in a statement.
The new guideline is published in Practical Radiation Oncology.
The purpose of this joint guideline was to provide recommendations on local therapy use for oligometastatic NSCLC, along with a summary of the evidence justifying its incorporation into standard treatment paradigms.
Key recommendations
Owing to the lack of significant randomized phase 3 trials, the guideline task force strongly recommended a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach for all decision-making regarding potential treatment. In addition, algorithms were also created for the optimal clinical scenarios for local therapy and the different types of local therapy that are available for these patients.
Key recommendations include:
- The integration of definitive local therapy is recommended only for patients who have five or fewer distant extracranial metastases, and only when technically feasible and clinically safe for all disease sites. Definitive local therapy is also conditionally recommended for carefully selected patients with synchronous oligometastatic, metachronous oligorecurrent, induced oligopersistent, or induced oligoprogressive conditions for extracranial NSCLC.
- Radiation and surgery are the only recommended modalities for definitive local treatment of oligometastatic NSCLC. Radiation is favored when multiple organ systems are being treated or when the clinical priority is to minimize breaks from systemic therapy, whereas surgery is favored when large tissue sampling is needed for molecular testing to guide systemic therapy.
- For sequencing and timing, there is an emphasis on upfront, definitive local treatment for symptomatic metastases. For asymptomatic patients with synchronous disease, at least 3 months of standard-of-care systemic therapy is recommended before starting definitive local therapy.
- For optimal staging, radiation dosing, treatment planning, and delivery techniques, there is a preference for hypofractionated radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy when appropriate. The task force also emphasizes the importance of appropriate imaging and comments that it “cannot be overstated” to diagnose oligometastatic disease; they recommend that care teams consult guidelines from groups such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
- Patients who develop disease progression at a limited number of sites, so-called oligoprogression at previously treated sites, and/or de novo recurrences at new sites may benefit from repeat local definitive therapy performed with the aim of prolonging progression-free survival or delaying a switch in systemic therapies.
Matthias Guckenberger, MD, cochair of the guideline task force and a professor and chairman of radiation oncology at the University Hospital Zürich, cautioned that “despite the widespread enthusiasm in the field of oligometastatic disease, the quality of evidence supporting the integration of definitive local therapy into a multimodality treatment strategy is still lower as compared to indications such as locally advanced NSCLC.”
“To compensate for this lack of highest-quality evidence, recommendations of this guideline were established by a broad consensus involving experts from ASTRO and ESTRO, colleagues from the fields of thoracic surgery and medical oncology and a patient representative,” Dr. Guckenberger said in a statement.
The guideline task force also emphasized the need for equitable use of these techniques, noting that “a significant effort must be taken to ensure that the decisions regarding the use of local therapies for oligometastatic NSCLC be applied equally across all patients to avoid any health disparities.”
This work was funded by ASTRO. Dr. Iyengar reported no disclosures. Dr. Guckenberger reports relationships with the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, Varian, ViewRay, and ESTRO. Several of the coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The result of a joint effort by the American Society for Radiation Oncology and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, the guidelines emphasizes the need for a multidisciplinary team approach to guide treatment decisions for oligometastatic disease.
Historically, treatment for oligometastatic NSCLC has involved systemic therapy including chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and local therapy was given only for palliation and symptom relief. But increasing evidence has demonstrated that definitive local therapy may have an additional role in controlling tumor growth and improving survival outcomes, and an increasing number of radiation oncologists and multidisciplinary teams are now using local therapy beyond palliative care for these patients, the authors noted.
“Oligometastatic NSCLC is a phase in lung cancer development that may offer us new opportunities to improve patient outcomes, because it typically is more treatable than widely metastatic cancer,” said Puneeth Iyengar, MD, PhD, cochair of the guideline task force and an associate professor of radiation oncology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
“The research on local therapy for oligometastatic cancer is still at a relatively early stage, but we already see indicators of potential benefits for patients. Adding local therapy to systemic therapy may lead to more durable cancer control, potentially improving progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life,” he said in a statement.
The new guideline is published in Practical Radiation Oncology.
The purpose of this joint guideline was to provide recommendations on local therapy use for oligometastatic NSCLC, along with a summary of the evidence justifying its incorporation into standard treatment paradigms.
Key recommendations
Owing to the lack of significant randomized phase 3 trials, the guideline task force strongly recommended a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach for all decision-making regarding potential treatment. In addition, algorithms were also created for the optimal clinical scenarios for local therapy and the different types of local therapy that are available for these patients.
Key recommendations include:
- The integration of definitive local therapy is recommended only for patients who have five or fewer distant extracranial metastases, and only when technically feasible and clinically safe for all disease sites. Definitive local therapy is also conditionally recommended for carefully selected patients with synchronous oligometastatic, metachronous oligorecurrent, induced oligopersistent, or induced oligoprogressive conditions for extracranial NSCLC.
- Radiation and surgery are the only recommended modalities for definitive local treatment of oligometastatic NSCLC. Radiation is favored when multiple organ systems are being treated or when the clinical priority is to minimize breaks from systemic therapy, whereas surgery is favored when large tissue sampling is needed for molecular testing to guide systemic therapy.
- For sequencing and timing, there is an emphasis on upfront, definitive local treatment for symptomatic metastases. For asymptomatic patients with synchronous disease, at least 3 months of standard-of-care systemic therapy is recommended before starting definitive local therapy.
- For optimal staging, radiation dosing, treatment planning, and delivery techniques, there is a preference for hypofractionated radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy when appropriate. The task force also emphasizes the importance of appropriate imaging and comments that it “cannot be overstated” to diagnose oligometastatic disease; they recommend that care teams consult guidelines from groups such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
- Patients who develop disease progression at a limited number of sites, so-called oligoprogression at previously treated sites, and/or de novo recurrences at new sites may benefit from repeat local definitive therapy performed with the aim of prolonging progression-free survival or delaying a switch in systemic therapies.
Matthias Guckenberger, MD, cochair of the guideline task force and a professor and chairman of radiation oncology at the University Hospital Zürich, cautioned that “despite the widespread enthusiasm in the field of oligometastatic disease, the quality of evidence supporting the integration of definitive local therapy into a multimodality treatment strategy is still lower as compared to indications such as locally advanced NSCLC.”
“To compensate for this lack of highest-quality evidence, recommendations of this guideline were established by a broad consensus involving experts from ASTRO and ESTRO, colleagues from the fields of thoracic surgery and medical oncology and a patient representative,” Dr. Guckenberger said in a statement.
The guideline task force also emphasized the need for equitable use of these techniques, noting that “a significant effort must be taken to ensure that the decisions regarding the use of local therapies for oligometastatic NSCLC be applied equally across all patients to avoid any health disparities.”
This work was funded by ASTRO. Dr. Iyengar reported no disclosures. Dr. Guckenberger reports relationships with the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, Varian, ViewRay, and ESTRO. Several of the coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The result of a joint effort by the American Society for Radiation Oncology and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, the guidelines emphasizes the need for a multidisciplinary team approach to guide treatment decisions for oligometastatic disease.
Historically, treatment for oligometastatic NSCLC has involved systemic therapy including chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and local therapy was given only for palliation and symptom relief. But increasing evidence has demonstrated that definitive local therapy may have an additional role in controlling tumor growth and improving survival outcomes, and an increasing number of radiation oncologists and multidisciplinary teams are now using local therapy beyond palliative care for these patients, the authors noted.
“Oligometastatic NSCLC is a phase in lung cancer development that may offer us new opportunities to improve patient outcomes, because it typically is more treatable than widely metastatic cancer,” said Puneeth Iyengar, MD, PhD, cochair of the guideline task force and an associate professor of radiation oncology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
“The research on local therapy for oligometastatic cancer is still at a relatively early stage, but we already see indicators of potential benefits for patients. Adding local therapy to systemic therapy may lead to more durable cancer control, potentially improving progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life,” he said in a statement.
The new guideline is published in Practical Radiation Oncology.
The purpose of this joint guideline was to provide recommendations on local therapy use for oligometastatic NSCLC, along with a summary of the evidence justifying its incorporation into standard treatment paradigms.
Key recommendations
Owing to the lack of significant randomized phase 3 trials, the guideline task force strongly recommended a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach for all decision-making regarding potential treatment. In addition, algorithms were also created for the optimal clinical scenarios for local therapy and the different types of local therapy that are available for these patients.
Key recommendations include:
- The integration of definitive local therapy is recommended only for patients who have five or fewer distant extracranial metastases, and only when technically feasible and clinically safe for all disease sites. Definitive local therapy is also conditionally recommended for carefully selected patients with synchronous oligometastatic, metachronous oligorecurrent, induced oligopersistent, or induced oligoprogressive conditions for extracranial NSCLC.
- Radiation and surgery are the only recommended modalities for definitive local treatment of oligometastatic NSCLC. Radiation is favored when multiple organ systems are being treated or when the clinical priority is to minimize breaks from systemic therapy, whereas surgery is favored when large tissue sampling is needed for molecular testing to guide systemic therapy.
- For sequencing and timing, there is an emphasis on upfront, definitive local treatment for symptomatic metastases. For asymptomatic patients with synchronous disease, at least 3 months of standard-of-care systemic therapy is recommended before starting definitive local therapy.
- For optimal staging, radiation dosing, treatment planning, and delivery techniques, there is a preference for hypofractionated radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy when appropriate. The task force also emphasizes the importance of appropriate imaging and comments that it “cannot be overstated” to diagnose oligometastatic disease; they recommend that care teams consult guidelines from groups such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
- Patients who develop disease progression at a limited number of sites, so-called oligoprogression at previously treated sites, and/or de novo recurrences at new sites may benefit from repeat local definitive therapy performed with the aim of prolonging progression-free survival or delaying a switch in systemic therapies.
Matthias Guckenberger, MD, cochair of the guideline task force and a professor and chairman of radiation oncology at the University Hospital Zürich, cautioned that “despite the widespread enthusiasm in the field of oligometastatic disease, the quality of evidence supporting the integration of definitive local therapy into a multimodality treatment strategy is still lower as compared to indications such as locally advanced NSCLC.”
“To compensate for this lack of highest-quality evidence, recommendations of this guideline were established by a broad consensus involving experts from ASTRO and ESTRO, colleagues from the fields of thoracic surgery and medical oncology and a patient representative,” Dr. Guckenberger said in a statement.
The guideline task force also emphasized the need for equitable use of these techniques, noting that “a significant effort must be taken to ensure that the decisions regarding the use of local therapies for oligometastatic NSCLC be applied equally across all patients to avoid any health disparities.”
This work was funded by ASTRO. Dr. Iyengar reported no disclosures. Dr. Guckenberger reports relationships with the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, Varian, ViewRay, and ESTRO. Several of the coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Liver transplants for CRC metastases: Coming into its own?
Liver transplant is an effective therapy for patients with primary liver cancer, and outcomes after transplantation are often superior to surgical resection. But the pool of potential patients is increasing, as transplantation is now emerging as an attractive option for select patients with nonresectable colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases, as well as those with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA).
Transplant is here to stay
To date, the only curative or potentially curative therapy for patients with CRC liver metastases and intrahepatic CCA has been the combination of systemic therapies and R0 resection, said Gonzalo Sapisochin Cantis, MD, associate professor, department of surgery, University of Toronto.
The new idea is that, for patients with unresectable disease, total hepatectomy followed by a liver transplant may be a promising strategy. “This is a very hot topic in transplant oncology,” he said.
Liver transplantation is already established as the best treatment option for patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma, which has become the main indication for liver transplantation at many centers.
For patients with CRC metastases and intrahepatic CCA, liver transplantation may help cure some patients by extending the conventional margins of surgical oncology, he suggested. “This is basically going to work in patients who have exclusive liver-restricted disease and not in those with metastatic disease. The efficacy is going to be seen by objective and sustained response to some sort of neoadjuvant therapy.”
However, Dr. Sapisochin emphasized liver transplantation is not an option for every patient. “We’re going to have to have clear inclusion and exclusion criteria that need to be defined a priori.”
Intrahepatic CCA has historically been considered a contraindication for liver transplantation. Surgical resection is the preferred first-line treatment and the only one that is potentially curative, he explained. However, most patients are not candidates for surgery, and even if they do have a resection, many of these patients will experience a recurrence, usually in the liver.
There are some studies that support transplantation in this patient population, including one by Dr. Sapisochin and colleagues. That study looked at patients who were transplanted under the assumption that they had hepatocellular carcinoma but were found to actually have intrahepatic CCA. The recurrence rate at 5 years was 18%, and 5-year survival was 65%.
“We were able to show that those patients with small tumors actually can do very well after transplant, with survivals over 70%-80%, which in this population is a very good outcome,” he said.
Transplant for CRC metastases
Unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer can also be challenging to treat, he said. Surgical resection is the only potential cure with a combination of systemic chemotherapy, but only a minority of patients are candidates for surgery.
Data supporting transplantation for CRC metastases have been emerging. One trial was conducted by researchers in Norway, who developed the Oslo score for risk stratification. “Those with risk factors had worse outcomes, and obviously, having a large tumor diameter, a high CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen), progressing on chemotherapy, or a short interval between the primary resection and the transplant were risk factors for recurrence,” Dr. Sapisochin said.
The 10-year survival among patients with a low Oslo score was 50%. “We’re talking about patients who had no resection possibility and received a transplant after systemic chemotherapy, and they had a 10-year survival of 50%,” he emphasized.
However, Dr. Sapisochin acknowledged the biggest problem transplant surgeons face is that there are not enough donor organs.
One solution is living donor liver transplantation. “Given that this is an unlimited source, you can utilize this as extended criteria and it adds another graft to the system,” he explained.
“We have a protocol for living donor liver transplantations for patients with colorectal liver metastasis,” Dr. Sapisochin said. “We’ve done seven cases so far with pretty good outcomes. One patient, unfortunately, passed away 39 months after transplant with lung metastases, but the rest are alive with no recurrence.”*
More available organs?
R. Mark Ghobrial, MD, PhD, director of the J.C. Walter Jr. Transplant Center at Houston Methodist Hospital, said that, 5 years ago, he was very cautious about liver transplantation for intrahepatic CCA.
He pointed out that, although transplantation for hepatocellular cancer was being done in the 1990s, the results were so poor that a moratorium was placed on the practice. “But now liver transplantation has become the definitive therapy for hepatocellular cancer, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is going the same way,” he said.
Dr. Ghobrial reiterated that one of the issues in transplantation for oncology patients is the limited supply of available organs, but he believes the landscape for liver transplantation has changed, resulting in more available organs. One factor is that hepatitis C has become curable with the advent of new therapies, and hence, the need for transplantation for patients with this disease has plummeted.
“I’ve done about maybe 800 transplants in the last 5 years. I’ve only transplanted two patients with hepatitis C,” he said. “Now we are doing more transplants for alcoholic liver disease and cancer.”
Improvements in technology are also allowing for more livers to become useable, he pointed out. One example is normothermic machine perfusion, which has entered the clinical arena in the last decade. The technique has shown promising results in improving the quality of marginal organs and increasing the pool of liver grafts.
Another factor that has increased the number of livers available for transplantation is the move to accept organs from circulatory death donors, as well as donations after brain death. “Our transplantation was about 4% of donors after cardiac death, but today this has gone up to almost 16% or 20% of the livers,” Dr. Ghobrial said. “In some centers this has gone up to about 50%.
“Liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and colorectal cancer metastases has come of age for selected patients,” he said.
More caution needed
However, another expert urged some caution, warning that live donation carries risk. Yuman Fong, MD, a surgical oncologist with City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said that around “1 in 600 live donors die from donation. That is a healthy person dying. This is not a small issue.”
He pointed out that if the criteria for transplant is greatly liberalized, the 5-year survival will not be as high as demonstrated in clinical trials.
Writing about the issue in a recent editorial, Dr. Fong pointed out that cadaveric livers for transplant remain a finite resource and that more than 1,000 patients still die every year on the waiting list for a transplant.
A more reasonable approach would be to advocate for this type of program in regions of the world where cadaveric livers are more plentiful or centers with established living donor transplant programs.
“For us to develop this resource and safeguard patients, family organ donors, and resources, we need to develop what are the best inclusion criteria,” Dr. Fong said. “We have to optimize use of all cadaveric organs and determine if we are willing to transplant borderline organs.”
Ethics of transplanting
Ethicist Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at New York University, said this is an interesting development in the field of liver transplantation. “There have been attempts in the past, and many did not end well, such as with Steve Jobs. But transplantation is always pushing to expand eligibility, and there has also been much success with that.”
However, Dr. Caplan emphasized the new data are innovative and experimental, which may control how many centers will be able to perform liver transplants in these cancer patient populations. “It has to be data driven as we are dealing with an exceedingly scarce source,” he said. “We know that people can do well, but it adds more stress to the supply of organs, and some patients may not do as well.”
He also emphasized that live donation is not a panacea. “Liver donation from a live donor is not the same as live donation for a kidney. It is much riskier and not that common. So not quite the same.”
The bottom line is that livers for transplantation are a scarce resource and transplant may work well in some cancer patients but not others, he emphasized. “Morally, we want to save lives, but not by adding in people who may not do well. If programs try to stretch the criteria, some may try transplants with more marginal organs.”
Dr. Sapisochin has disclosed relationships with Bayer, Roche, Novartis, Integra, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Evidera, and Stryker. Dr. Ghobrial reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fong has reported being a scientific consultant for Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson and receiving royalties from Merck and Imugene. Dr. Caplan writes a regular column on ethics for Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 4/28/23 - An earlier version of this article misstated when the patient passed away.
Liver transplant is an effective therapy for patients with primary liver cancer, and outcomes after transplantation are often superior to surgical resection. But the pool of potential patients is increasing, as transplantation is now emerging as an attractive option for select patients with nonresectable colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases, as well as those with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA).
Transplant is here to stay
To date, the only curative or potentially curative therapy for patients with CRC liver metastases and intrahepatic CCA has been the combination of systemic therapies and R0 resection, said Gonzalo Sapisochin Cantis, MD, associate professor, department of surgery, University of Toronto.
The new idea is that, for patients with unresectable disease, total hepatectomy followed by a liver transplant may be a promising strategy. “This is a very hot topic in transplant oncology,” he said.
Liver transplantation is already established as the best treatment option for patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma, which has become the main indication for liver transplantation at many centers.
For patients with CRC metastases and intrahepatic CCA, liver transplantation may help cure some patients by extending the conventional margins of surgical oncology, he suggested. “This is basically going to work in patients who have exclusive liver-restricted disease and not in those with metastatic disease. The efficacy is going to be seen by objective and sustained response to some sort of neoadjuvant therapy.”
However, Dr. Sapisochin emphasized liver transplantation is not an option for every patient. “We’re going to have to have clear inclusion and exclusion criteria that need to be defined a priori.”
Intrahepatic CCA has historically been considered a contraindication for liver transplantation. Surgical resection is the preferred first-line treatment and the only one that is potentially curative, he explained. However, most patients are not candidates for surgery, and even if they do have a resection, many of these patients will experience a recurrence, usually in the liver.
There are some studies that support transplantation in this patient population, including one by Dr. Sapisochin and colleagues. That study looked at patients who were transplanted under the assumption that they had hepatocellular carcinoma but were found to actually have intrahepatic CCA. The recurrence rate at 5 years was 18%, and 5-year survival was 65%.
“We were able to show that those patients with small tumors actually can do very well after transplant, with survivals over 70%-80%, which in this population is a very good outcome,” he said.
Transplant for CRC metastases
Unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer can also be challenging to treat, he said. Surgical resection is the only potential cure with a combination of systemic chemotherapy, but only a minority of patients are candidates for surgery.
Data supporting transplantation for CRC metastases have been emerging. One trial was conducted by researchers in Norway, who developed the Oslo score for risk stratification. “Those with risk factors had worse outcomes, and obviously, having a large tumor diameter, a high CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen), progressing on chemotherapy, or a short interval between the primary resection and the transplant were risk factors for recurrence,” Dr. Sapisochin said.
The 10-year survival among patients with a low Oslo score was 50%. “We’re talking about patients who had no resection possibility and received a transplant after systemic chemotherapy, and they had a 10-year survival of 50%,” he emphasized.
However, Dr. Sapisochin acknowledged the biggest problem transplant surgeons face is that there are not enough donor organs.
One solution is living donor liver transplantation. “Given that this is an unlimited source, you can utilize this as extended criteria and it adds another graft to the system,” he explained.
“We have a protocol for living donor liver transplantations for patients with colorectal liver metastasis,” Dr. Sapisochin said. “We’ve done seven cases so far with pretty good outcomes. One patient, unfortunately, passed away 39 months after transplant with lung metastases, but the rest are alive with no recurrence.”*
More available organs?
R. Mark Ghobrial, MD, PhD, director of the J.C. Walter Jr. Transplant Center at Houston Methodist Hospital, said that, 5 years ago, he was very cautious about liver transplantation for intrahepatic CCA.
He pointed out that, although transplantation for hepatocellular cancer was being done in the 1990s, the results were so poor that a moratorium was placed on the practice. “But now liver transplantation has become the definitive therapy for hepatocellular cancer, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is going the same way,” he said.
Dr. Ghobrial reiterated that one of the issues in transplantation for oncology patients is the limited supply of available organs, but he believes the landscape for liver transplantation has changed, resulting in more available organs. One factor is that hepatitis C has become curable with the advent of new therapies, and hence, the need for transplantation for patients with this disease has plummeted.
“I’ve done about maybe 800 transplants in the last 5 years. I’ve only transplanted two patients with hepatitis C,” he said. “Now we are doing more transplants for alcoholic liver disease and cancer.”
Improvements in technology are also allowing for more livers to become useable, he pointed out. One example is normothermic machine perfusion, which has entered the clinical arena in the last decade. The technique has shown promising results in improving the quality of marginal organs and increasing the pool of liver grafts.
Another factor that has increased the number of livers available for transplantation is the move to accept organs from circulatory death donors, as well as donations after brain death. “Our transplantation was about 4% of donors after cardiac death, but today this has gone up to almost 16% or 20% of the livers,” Dr. Ghobrial said. “In some centers this has gone up to about 50%.
“Liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and colorectal cancer metastases has come of age for selected patients,” he said.
More caution needed
However, another expert urged some caution, warning that live donation carries risk. Yuman Fong, MD, a surgical oncologist with City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said that around “1 in 600 live donors die from donation. That is a healthy person dying. This is not a small issue.”
He pointed out that if the criteria for transplant is greatly liberalized, the 5-year survival will not be as high as demonstrated in clinical trials.
Writing about the issue in a recent editorial, Dr. Fong pointed out that cadaveric livers for transplant remain a finite resource and that more than 1,000 patients still die every year on the waiting list for a transplant.
A more reasonable approach would be to advocate for this type of program in regions of the world where cadaveric livers are more plentiful or centers with established living donor transplant programs.
“For us to develop this resource and safeguard patients, family organ donors, and resources, we need to develop what are the best inclusion criteria,” Dr. Fong said. “We have to optimize use of all cadaveric organs and determine if we are willing to transplant borderline organs.”
Ethics of transplanting
Ethicist Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at New York University, said this is an interesting development in the field of liver transplantation. “There have been attempts in the past, and many did not end well, such as with Steve Jobs. But transplantation is always pushing to expand eligibility, and there has also been much success with that.”
However, Dr. Caplan emphasized the new data are innovative and experimental, which may control how many centers will be able to perform liver transplants in these cancer patient populations. “It has to be data driven as we are dealing with an exceedingly scarce source,” he said. “We know that people can do well, but it adds more stress to the supply of organs, and some patients may not do as well.”
He also emphasized that live donation is not a panacea. “Liver donation from a live donor is not the same as live donation for a kidney. It is much riskier and not that common. So not quite the same.”
The bottom line is that livers for transplantation are a scarce resource and transplant may work well in some cancer patients but not others, he emphasized. “Morally, we want to save lives, but not by adding in people who may not do well. If programs try to stretch the criteria, some may try transplants with more marginal organs.”
Dr. Sapisochin has disclosed relationships with Bayer, Roche, Novartis, Integra, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Evidera, and Stryker. Dr. Ghobrial reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fong has reported being a scientific consultant for Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson and receiving royalties from Merck and Imugene. Dr. Caplan writes a regular column on ethics for Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 4/28/23 - An earlier version of this article misstated when the patient passed away.
Liver transplant is an effective therapy for patients with primary liver cancer, and outcomes after transplantation are often superior to surgical resection. But the pool of potential patients is increasing, as transplantation is now emerging as an attractive option for select patients with nonresectable colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases, as well as those with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA).
Transplant is here to stay
To date, the only curative or potentially curative therapy for patients with CRC liver metastases and intrahepatic CCA has been the combination of systemic therapies and R0 resection, said Gonzalo Sapisochin Cantis, MD, associate professor, department of surgery, University of Toronto.
The new idea is that, for patients with unresectable disease, total hepatectomy followed by a liver transplant may be a promising strategy. “This is a very hot topic in transplant oncology,” he said.
Liver transplantation is already established as the best treatment option for patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma, which has become the main indication for liver transplantation at many centers.
For patients with CRC metastases and intrahepatic CCA, liver transplantation may help cure some patients by extending the conventional margins of surgical oncology, he suggested. “This is basically going to work in patients who have exclusive liver-restricted disease and not in those with metastatic disease. The efficacy is going to be seen by objective and sustained response to some sort of neoadjuvant therapy.”
However, Dr. Sapisochin emphasized liver transplantation is not an option for every patient. “We’re going to have to have clear inclusion and exclusion criteria that need to be defined a priori.”
Intrahepatic CCA has historically been considered a contraindication for liver transplantation. Surgical resection is the preferred first-line treatment and the only one that is potentially curative, he explained. However, most patients are not candidates for surgery, and even if they do have a resection, many of these patients will experience a recurrence, usually in the liver.
There are some studies that support transplantation in this patient population, including one by Dr. Sapisochin and colleagues. That study looked at patients who were transplanted under the assumption that they had hepatocellular carcinoma but were found to actually have intrahepatic CCA. The recurrence rate at 5 years was 18%, and 5-year survival was 65%.
“We were able to show that those patients with small tumors actually can do very well after transplant, with survivals over 70%-80%, which in this population is a very good outcome,” he said.
Transplant for CRC metastases
Unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer can also be challenging to treat, he said. Surgical resection is the only potential cure with a combination of systemic chemotherapy, but only a minority of patients are candidates for surgery.
Data supporting transplantation for CRC metastases have been emerging. One trial was conducted by researchers in Norway, who developed the Oslo score for risk stratification. “Those with risk factors had worse outcomes, and obviously, having a large tumor diameter, a high CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen), progressing on chemotherapy, or a short interval between the primary resection and the transplant were risk factors for recurrence,” Dr. Sapisochin said.
The 10-year survival among patients with a low Oslo score was 50%. “We’re talking about patients who had no resection possibility and received a transplant after systemic chemotherapy, and they had a 10-year survival of 50%,” he emphasized.
However, Dr. Sapisochin acknowledged the biggest problem transplant surgeons face is that there are not enough donor organs.
One solution is living donor liver transplantation. “Given that this is an unlimited source, you can utilize this as extended criteria and it adds another graft to the system,” he explained.
“We have a protocol for living donor liver transplantations for patients with colorectal liver metastasis,” Dr. Sapisochin said. “We’ve done seven cases so far with pretty good outcomes. One patient, unfortunately, passed away 39 months after transplant with lung metastases, but the rest are alive with no recurrence.”*
More available organs?
R. Mark Ghobrial, MD, PhD, director of the J.C. Walter Jr. Transplant Center at Houston Methodist Hospital, said that, 5 years ago, he was very cautious about liver transplantation for intrahepatic CCA.
He pointed out that, although transplantation for hepatocellular cancer was being done in the 1990s, the results were so poor that a moratorium was placed on the practice. “But now liver transplantation has become the definitive therapy for hepatocellular cancer, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is going the same way,” he said.
Dr. Ghobrial reiterated that one of the issues in transplantation for oncology patients is the limited supply of available organs, but he believes the landscape for liver transplantation has changed, resulting in more available organs. One factor is that hepatitis C has become curable with the advent of new therapies, and hence, the need for transplantation for patients with this disease has plummeted.
“I’ve done about maybe 800 transplants in the last 5 years. I’ve only transplanted two patients with hepatitis C,” he said. “Now we are doing more transplants for alcoholic liver disease and cancer.”
Improvements in technology are also allowing for more livers to become useable, he pointed out. One example is normothermic machine perfusion, which has entered the clinical arena in the last decade. The technique has shown promising results in improving the quality of marginal organs and increasing the pool of liver grafts.
Another factor that has increased the number of livers available for transplantation is the move to accept organs from circulatory death donors, as well as donations after brain death. “Our transplantation was about 4% of donors after cardiac death, but today this has gone up to almost 16% or 20% of the livers,” Dr. Ghobrial said. “In some centers this has gone up to about 50%.
“Liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and colorectal cancer metastases has come of age for selected patients,” he said.
More caution needed
However, another expert urged some caution, warning that live donation carries risk. Yuman Fong, MD, a surgical oncologist with City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said that around “1 in 600 live donors die from donation. That is a healthy person dying. This is not a small issue.”
He pointed out that if the criteria for transplant is greatly liberalized, the 5-year survival will not be as high as demonstrated in clinical trials.
Writing about the issue in a recent editorial, Dr. Fong pointed out that cadaveric livers for transplant remain a finite resource and that more than 1,000 patients still die every year on the waiting list for a transplant.
A more reasonable approach would be to advocate for this type of program in regions of the world where cadaveric livers are more plentiful or centers with established living donor transplant programs.
“For us to develop this resource and safeguard patients, family organ donors, and resources, we need to develop what are the best inclusion criteria,” Dr. Fong said. “We have to optimize use of all cadaveric organs and determine if we are willing to transplant borderline organs.”
Ethics of transplanting
Ethicist Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at New York University, said this is an interesting development in the field of liver transplantation. “There have been attempts in the past, and many did not end well, such as with Steve Jobs. But transplantation is always pushing to expand eligibility, and there has also been much success with that.”
However, Dr. Caplan emphasized the new data are innovative and experimental, which may control how many centers will be able to perform liver transplants in these cancer patient populations. “It has to be data driven as we are dealing with an exceedingly scarce source,” he said. “We know that people can do well, but it adds more stress to the supply of organs, and some patients may not do as well.”
He also emphasized that live donation is not a panacea. “Liver donation from a live donor is not the same as live donation for a kidney. It is much riskier and not that common. So not quite the same.”
The bottom line is that livers for transplantation are a scarce resource and transplant may work well in some cancer patients but not others, he emphasized. “Morally, we want to save lives, but not by adding in people who may not do well. If programs try to stretch the criteria, some may try transplants with more marginal organs.”
Dr. Sapisochin has disclosed relationships with Bayer, Roche, Novartis, Integra, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Evidera, and Stryker. Dr. Ghobrial reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fong has reported being a scientific consultant for Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson and receiving royalties from Merck and Imugene. Dr. Caplan writes a regular column on ethics for Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 4/28/23 - An earlier version of this article misstated when the patient passed away.
FROM ASCO GU 2023