Roxanne Nelson, RN, BSN

The antidepressant bupropion failed to improve sexual dysfunction in female cancer survivors, according to new findings published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as a measurement tool, investigators found that desire scores were not significantly different for participants who received bupropion versus a placebo over the 9-week study period.

“Sexual health is a complex phenomenon and [our results suggest that] no one intervention is going to solve the broader issue,” lead author Debra Barton, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor in the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Sexual dysfunction is common among cancer survivors and experienced across multiple cancer types and stages of disease. Research shows that as many as 70% of female cancer survivors report loss of desire, compared with up to one-third of the general population.

Common sexual concerns among female cancer survivors include low desire, arousal issues, lack of appropriate lubrication, difficulty in achieving orgasm, and pain with penetrative sexual activity. Additionally, these women may experience significant overlap of symptoms, and often encounter multiple sexual issues that are exacerbated by a range of cancer treatments.

“It’s a huge problem,” Maryam B. Lustberg, MD, MPH, from Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Despite the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among cancer survivors, effective treatments remain elusive. Preliminary evidence suggests that bupropion, already approved for seasonal affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and smoking cessation, may also enhance libido.

Dr. Barton and colleagues conducted this phase 2 trial to determine whether bupropion can improve sexual desire in female cancer survivors without undesirable side effects.

In the study, Dr. Barton and colleagues compared two dose levels of extended-release bupropion in a cohort of 230 postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer and low baseline FSFI desire scores (<3.3), who had completed definitive cancer therapy.

Participants were randomized to receive either 150 mg (79 patients) or 300 mg (74 patients) once daily of extended-release bupropion, or placebo (77 patients).

Barton and colleagues then evaluated whether sexual desire significantly improved over the 9-week study period comparing the bupropion arms and the placebo group.

Overall, the authors found no significant differences (mean between-arm change for 150 mg once daily and placebo of 0.02; P = .93; mean between-arm change for 300 mg once daily and placebo of –0.02; P = .92). Mean scores at 9 weeks on the desire subscale were 2.17, 2.27, and 2.30 for 150 mg, 300 mg, and the placebo group, respectively.

In addition, none of the subscales – which included arousal, lubrication, and orgasm – or the total score showed a significant difference between arms at either 5 or 9 weeks.

Bupropion did, however, appear to be well tolerated. No grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred. In the 150-mg bupropion arm, two patients (2.6%) experienced a grade 3 event (insomnia and headache) and one patient in the 300-mg bupropion arm (1.4%) and placebo arm (1.3%) experienced a grade 3 event related to treatment (hypertension and headache, respectively).

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Lustberg and colleagues “applaud the authors for conducting a study in this population of cancer survivors,” noting that “evidenced-based approaches have not been extensively studied.”

Dr. Lustberg and colleagues also commented that other randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating sexual desire disorder assessed outcomes using additional metrics, such as the Female Sexual Distress Scale–Revised questionnaire, which measures distress related to sexual dysfunction and low desire, in particular.

“The use of specific validated instruments for libido in place of the FSFI might have helped determine the effect of the study intervention in this reported trial,” they wrote.

Overall, according to Dr. Lustberg and colleagues, the negative results of this study indicate that a multidisciplinary clinical approach may be needed.

“As much as we would like to have one intervention that addresses this prominent issue, the evidence strongly suggests that cancer-related sexual problems may need an integrative biopsychosocial model that intervenes on biologic, psychologic, interpersonal, and social-cultural factors, not just on one factor, such as libido,” they wrote. “Such work may require access to multidisciplinary care with specialists in women’s health, pelvic floor rehabilitation, and psychosocial oncology.”

Dr. Barton said she has been developing a multicomponent approach to addressing sexual health in female cancer survivors.

However, she noted, “there is still much we do not fully understand about the broader impact of the degree of hormone deprivation in the population of female cancer survivors. A better understanding would provide clearer targets for interventions.” 

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Barton has disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Lustberg reported receiving honoraria from Novartis and Biotheranostics; consulting or advising with PledPharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Pfizer; and other relationships with Cynosure/Hologic.

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

The antidepressant bupropion failed to improve sexual dysfunction in female cancer survivors, according to new findings published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as a measurement tool, investigators found that desire scores were not significantly different for participants who received bupropion versus a placebo over the 9-week study period.

“Sexual health is a complex phenomenon and [our results suggest that] no one intervention is going to solve the broader issue,” lead author Debra Barton, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor in the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Sexual dysfunction is common among cancer survivors and experienced across multiple cancer types and stages of disease. Research shows that as many as 70% of female cancer survivors report loss of desire, compared with up to one-third of the general population.

Common sexual concerns among female cancer survivors include low desire, arousal issues, lack of appropriate lubrication, difficulty in achieving orgasm, and pain with penetrative sexual activity. Additionally, these women may experience significant overlap of symptoms, and often encounter multiple sexual issues that are exacerbated by a range of cancer treatments.

“It’s a huge problem,” Maryam B. Lustberg, MD, MPH, from Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Despite the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among cancer survivors, effective treatments remain elusive. Preliminary evidence suggests that bupropion, already approved for seasonal affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and smoking cessation, may also enhance libido.

Dr. Barton and colleagues conducted this phase 2 trial to determine whether bupropion can improve sexual desire in female cancer survivors without undesirable side effects.

In the study, Dr. Barton and colleagues compared two dose levels of extended-release bupropion in a cohort of 230 postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer and low baseline FSFI desire scores (<3.3), who had completed definitive cancer therapy.

Participants were randomized to receive either 150 mg (79 patients) or 300 mg (74 patients) once daily of extended-release bupropion, or placebo (77 patients).

Barton and colleagues then evaluated whether sexual desire significantly improved over the 9-week study period comparing the bupropion arms and the placebo group.

Overall, the authors found no significant differences (mean between-arm change for 150 mg once daily and placebo of 0.02; P = .93; mean between-arm change for 300 mg once daily and placebo of –0.02; P = .92). Mean scores at 9 weeks on the desire subscale were 2.17, 2.27, and 2.30 for 150 mg, 300 mg, and the placebo group, respectively.

In addition, none of the subscales – which included arousal, lubrication, and orgasm – or the total score showed a significant difference between arms at either 5 or 9 weeks.

Bupropion did, however, appear to be well tolerated. No grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred. In the 150-mg bupropion arm, two patients (2.6%) experienced a grade 3 event (insomnia and headache) and one patient in the 300-mg bupropion arm (1.4%) and placebo arm (1.3%) experienced a grade 3 event related to treatment (hypertension and headache, respectively).

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Lustberg and colleagues “applaud the authors for conducting a study in this population of cancer survivors,” noting that “evidenced-based approaches have not been extensively studied.”

Dr. Lustberg and colleagues also commented that other randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating sexual desire disorder assessed outcomes using additional metrics, such as the Female Sexual Distress Scale–Revised questionnaire, which measures distress related to sexual dysfunction and low desire, in particular.

“The use of specific validated instruments for libido in place of the FSFI might have helped determine the effect of the study intervention in this reported trial,” they wrote.

Overall, according to Dr. Lustberg and colleagues, the negative results of this study indicate that a multidisciplinary clinical approach may be needed.

“As much as we would like to have one intervention that addresses this prominent issue, the evidence strongly suggests that cancer-related sexual problems may need an integrative biopsychosocial model that intervenes on biologic, psychologic, interpersonal, and social-cultural factors, not just on one factor, such as libido,” they wrote. “Such work may require access to multidisciplinary care with specialists in women’s health, pelvic floor rehabilitation, and psychosocial oncology.”

Dr. Barton said she has been developing a multicomponent approach to addressing sexual health in female cancer survivors.

However, she noted, “there is still much we do not fully understand about the broader impact of the degree of hormone deprivation in the population of female cancer survivors. A better understanding would provide clearer targets for interventions.” 

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Barton has disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Lustberg reported receiving honoraria from Novartis and Biotheranostics; consulting or advising with PledPharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Pfizer; and other relationships with Cynosure/Hologic.

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

The antidepressant bupropion failed to improve sexual dysfunction in female cancer survivors, according to new findings published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as a measurement tool, investigators found that desire scores were not significantly different for participants who received bupropion versus a placebo over the 9-week study period.

“Sexual health is a complex phenomenon and [our results suggest that] no one intervention is going to solve the broader issue,” lead author Debra Barton, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor in the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Sexual dysfunction is common among cancer survivors and experienced across multiple cancer types and stages of disease. Research shows that as many as 70% of female cancer survivors report loss of desire, compared with up to one-third of the general population.

Common sexual concerns among female cancer survivors include low desire, arousal issues, lack of appropriate lubrication, difficulty in achieving orgasm, and pain with penetrative sexual activity. Additionally, these women may experience significant overlap of symptoms, and often encounter multiple sexual issues that are exacerbated by a range of cancer treatments.

“It’s a huge problem,” Maryam B. Lustberg, MD, MPH, from Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Despite the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among cancer survivors, effective treatments remain elusive. Preliminary evidence suggests that bupropion, already approved for seasonal affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and smoking cessation, may also enhance libido.

Dr. Barton and colleagues conducted this phase 2 trial to determine whether bupropion can improve sexual desire in female cancer survivors without undesirable side effects.

In the study, Dr. Barton and colleagues compared two dose levels of extended-release bupropion in a cohort of 230 postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer and low baseline FSFI desire scores (<3.3), who had completed definitive cancer therapy.

Participants were randomized to receive either 150 mg (79 patients) or 300 mg (74 patients) once daily of extended-release bupropion, or placebo (77 patients).

Barton and colleagues then evaluated whether sexual desire significantly improved over the 9-week study period comparing the bupropion arms and the placebo group.

Overall, the authors found no significant differences (mean between-arm change for 150 mg once daily and placebo of 0.02; P = .93; mean between-arm change for 300 mg once daily and placebo of –0.02; P = .92). Mean scores at 9 weeks on the desire subscale were 2.17, 2.27, and 2.30 for 150 mg, 300 mg, and the placebo group, respectively.

In addition, none of the subscales – which included arousal, lubrication, and orgasm – or the total score showed a significant difference between arms at either 5 or 9 weeks.

Bupropion did, however, appear to be well tolerated. No grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred. In the 150-mg bupropion arm, two patients (2.6%) experienced a grade 3 event (insomnia and headache) and one patient in the 300-mg bupropion arm (1.4%) and placebo arm (1.3%) experienced a grade 3 event related to treatment (hypertension and headache, respectively).

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Lustberg and colleagues “applaud the authors for conducting a study in this population of cancer survivors,” noting that “evidenced-based approaches have not been extensively studied.”

Dr. Lustberg and colleagues also commented that other randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating sexual desire disorder assessed outcomes using additional metrics, such as the Female Sexual Distress Scale–Revised questionnaire, which measures distress related to sexual dysfunction and low desire, in particular.

“The use of specific validated instruments for libido in place of the FSFI might have helped determine the effect of the study intervention in this reported trial,” they wrote.

Overall, according to Dr. Lustberg and colleagues, the negative results of this study indicate that a multidisciplinary clinical approach may be needed.

“As much as we would like to have one intervention that addresses this prominent issue, the evidence strongly suggests that cancer-related sexual problems may need an integrative biopsychosocial model that intervenes on biologic, psychologic, interpersonal, and social-cultural factors, not just on one factor, such as libido,” they wrote. “Such work may require access to multidisciplinary care with specialists in women’s health, pelvic floor rehabilitation, and psychosocial oncology.”

Dr. Barton said she has been developing a multicomponent approach to addressing sexual health in female cancer survivors.

However, she noted, “there is still much we do not fully understand about the broader impact of the degree of hormone deprivation in the population of female cancer survivors. A better understanding would provide clearer targets for interventions.” 

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Barton has disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Lustberg reported receiving honoraria from Novartis and Biotheranostics; consulting or advising with PledPharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Pfizer; and other relationships with Cynosure/Hologic.

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

A prominent Florida oncologist was arrested in December, and some members of the medical community are puzzled.

Michael Dattoli, MD, a radiation oncologist and physician-in-chief of the Dattoli Cancer Center in Sarasota, Fla., has been charged with prescription and insurance fraud, according to the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office.

The charges include three counts of possessing a controlled substance by fraud, three counts of criminal use of personal identification information, and three counts of insurance fraud.

Dr. Dattoli was arrested on December 16.

According to investigators, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center alleged that Dr. Dattoli filled prescriptions for diazepam (Valium) three times in his wife’s name using a different healthcare provider’s information.

Some experts find it bizarre for a physician of his stature to have possibly engaged in such a transgression — a relatively minor fraud that comes with serious consequences.

“This is a very well-respected physician who has done a lot of good in the community, and this makes no sense at all,” said Jay Wolfson, PhD, JD, Distinguished Service Professor of Public Health Medicine and Pharmacy and associate vice president for health law, policy, and safety at the University of South Florida, Tampa. “It’s low-level fraud, and not like he was laundering money or involved in pill mills, which has been problematic in Florida.”

According to recent accounts from local news agencies, in August 2021, the Sarasota police connected with investigators from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office’s Pharmaceutical Diversion Unit regarding prescription fraud dating back to 2019 and 2020 involving Dr. Dattoli and a “victim.”

The victim, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center, had left his job at the end of 2020 after 5 years. His name and position at the cancer center were redacted in the arrest warrant, but the warrant mentions that he treated patients while he worked at the center.

The former employee told police that when checking the Florida prescription drug database for controlled substances in September 2021, he noticed that several fraudulent prescriptions for diazepam — a controlled substance — had been entered from 2020. The recipient was Dr. Dattoli’s wife, Rita Beatrice Dattoli, but the former employee stated he had never authorized these prescriptions and that Dr. Dattoli’s wife was never his patient.

In September 2021, the police obtained copies of multiple prescriptions from local pharmacies that were phoned in throughout 2020 by the Dattoli Cancer Center. The prescriptions were filled and picked up the same day by Dr. Dattoli himself, whose identity had been verified by his driver’s license.

Dr. Dattoli’s wife, who was interviewed by the police in October 2021, stated she had never been a patient at the center, that the prescription was not hers, and that she had never used the prescribed drug.

A month later, the Sarasota police subpoenaed bank records that matched accounts belonging to Dr. Dattoli, which showed the same dates, total purchase price, and stores where fraudulent prescriptions were filled, picked up, and purchased.

None of this really makes any sense, Dr. Wolfson told this news organizataion. “Any physician in need of Valium doesn’t have to forge a prescription, he can get it from any of his colleagues,” he noted. “And why put it in his wife’s name? He also submitted it to his insurance, which leaves more of a paper trail. And he didn’t need to have insurance pay for it — Valium is a very inexpensive drug.”

Plus, Dr. Wolfson added, “I know people who have been treated by Dr. Dattoli and they have nothing but good things to say about him — he’s an excellent doctor with a great bedside manner. His record is clean, he’s never been reprimanded, he’s built a successful practice, and then this thing just parachutes out of the sky.”

The investigation is ongoing, and detectives from the Sarasota police department have stated that they “believe there may be additional victims.”

Dr. Dattoli was released the day after his arrest on a $1,500 bond. His arraignment is scheduled for January 22. If convicted, he could face prison time, fines, or even lose his license to practice medicine.

Dr. Wolfson added that the arraignment is the first step in the process. “But even if it can be determined that he forged a signature, I don’t think it will rise to a level where his license will be revoked,” he said.

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

A prominent Florida oncologist was arrested in December, and some members of the medical community are puzzled.

Michael Dattoli, MD, a radiation oncologist and physician-in-chief of the Dattoli Cancer Center in Sarasota, Fla., has been charged with prescription and insurance fraud, according to the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office.

The charges include three counts of possessing a controlled substance by fraud, three counts of criminal use of personal identification information, and three counts of insurance fraud.

Dr. Dattoli was arrested on December 16.

According to investigators, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center alleged that Dr. Dattoli filled prescriptions for diazepam (Valium) three times in his wife’s name using a different healthcare provider’s information.

Some experts find it bizarre for a physician of his stature to have possibly engaged in such a transgression — a relatively minor fraud that comes with serious consequences.

“This is a very well-respected physician who has done a lot of good in the community, and this makes no sense at all,” said Jay Wolfson, PhD, JD, Distinguished Service Professor of Public Health Medicine and Pharmacy and associate vice president for health law, policy, and safety at the University of South Florida, Tampa. “It’s low-level fraud, and not like he was laundering money or involved in pill mills, which has been problematic in Florida.”

According to recent accounts from local news agencies, in August 2021, the Sarasota police connected with investigators from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office’s Pharmaceutical Diversion Unit regarding prescription fraud dating back to 2019 and 2020 involving Dr. Dattoli and a “victim.”

The victim, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center, had left his job at the end of 2020 after 5 years. His name and position at the cancer center were redacted in the arrest warrant, but the warrant mentions that he treated patients while he worked at the center.

The former employee told police that when checking the Florida prescription drug database for controlled substances in September 2021, he noticed that several fraudulent prescriptions for diazepam — a controlled substance — had been entered from 2020. The recipient was Dr. Dattoli’s wife, Rita Beatrice Dattoli, but the former employee stated he had never authorized these prescriptions and that Dr. Dattoli’s wife was never his patient.

In September 2021, the police obtained copies of multiple prescriptions from local pharmacies that were phoned in throughout 2020 by the Dattoli Cancer Center. The prescriptions were filled and picked up the same day by Dr. Dattoli himself, whose identity had been verified by his driver’s license.

Dr. Dattoli’s wife, who was interviewed by the police in October 2021, stated she had never been a patient at the center, that the prescription was not hers, and that she had never used the prescribed drug.

A month later, the Sarasota police subpoenaed bank records that matched accounts belonging to Dr. Dattoli, which showed the same dates, total purchase price, and stores where fraudulent prescriptions were filled, picked up, and purchased.

None of this really makes any sense, Dr. Wolfson told this news organizataion. “Any physician in need of Valium doesn’t have to forge a prescription, he can get it from any of his colleagues,” he noted. “And why put it in his wife’s name? He also submitted it to his insurance, which leaves more of a paper trail. And he didn’t need to have insurance pay for it — Valium is a very inexpensive drug.”

Plus, Dr. Wolfson added, “I know people who have been treated by Dr. Dattoli and they have nothing but good things to say about him — he’s an excellent doctor with a great bedside manner. His record is clean, he’s never been reprimanded, he’s built a successful practice, and then this thing just parachutes out of the sky.”

The investigation is ongoing, and detectives from the Sarasota police department have stated that they “believe there may be additional victims.”

Dr. Dattoli was released the day after his arrest on a $1,500 bond. His arraignment is scheduled for January 22. If convicted, he could face prison time, fines, or even lose his license to practice medicine.

Dr. Wolfson added that the arraignment is the first step in the process. “But even if it can be determined that he forged a signature, I don’t think it will rise to a level where his license will be revoked,” he said.

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

A prominent Florida oncologist was arrested in December, and some members of the medical community are puzzled.

Michael Dattoli, MD, a radiation oncologist and physician-in-chief of the Dattoli Cancer Center in Sarasota, Fla., has been charged with prescription and insurance fraud, according to the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office.

The charges include three counts of possessing a controlled substance by fraud, three counts of criminal use of personal identification information, and three counts of insurance fraud.

Dr. Dattoli was arrested on December 16.

According to investigators, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center alleged that Dr. Dattoli filled prescriptions for diazepam (Valium) three times in his wife’s name using a different healthcare provider’s information.

Some experts find it bizarre for a physician of his stature to have possibly engaged in such a transgression — a relatively minor fraud that comes with serious consequences.

“This is a very well-respected physician who has done a lot of good in the community, and this makes no sense at all,” said Jay Wolfson, PhD, JD, Distinguished Service Professor of Public Health Medicine and Pharmacy and associate vice president for health law, policy, and safety at the University of South Florida, Tampa. “It’s low-level fraud, and not like he was laundering money or involved in pill mills, which has been problematic in Florida.”

According to recent accounts from local news agencies, in August 2021, the Sarasota police connected with investigators from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office’s Pharmaceutical Diversion Unit regarding prescription fraud dating back to 2019 and 2020 involving Dr. Dattoli and a “victim.”

The victim, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center, had left his job at the end of 2020 after 5 years. His name and position at the cancer center were redacted in the arrest warrant, but the warrant mentions that he treated patients while he worked at the center.

The former employee told police that when checking the Florida prescription drug database for controlled substances in September 2021, he noticed that several fraudulent prescriptions for diazepam — a controlled substance — had been entered from 2020. The recipient was Dr. Dattoli’s wife, Rita Beatrice Dattoli, but the former employee stated he had never authorized these prescriptions and that Dr. Dattoli’s wife was never his patient.

In September 2021, the police obtained copies of multiple prescriptions from local pharmacies that were phoned in throughout 2020 by the Dattoli Cancer Center. The prescriptions were filled and picked up the same day by Dr. Dattoli himself, whose identity had been verified by his driver’s license.

Dr. Dattoli’s wife, who was interviewed by the police in October 2021, stated she had never been a patient at the center, that the prescription was not hers, and that she had never used the prescribed drug.

A month later, the Sarasota police subpoenaed bank records that matched accounts belonging to Dr. Dattoli, which showed the same dates, total purchase price, and stores where fraudulent prescriptions were filled, picked up, and purchased.

None of this really makes any sense, Dr. Wolfson told this news organizataion. “Any physician in need of Valium doesn’t have to forge a prescription, he can get it from any of his colleagues,” he noted. “And why put it in his wife’s name? He also submitted it to his insurance, which leaves more of a paper trail. And he didn’t need to have insurance pay for it — Valium is a very inexpensive drug.”

Plus, Dr. Wolfson added, “I know people who have been treated by Dr. Dattoli and they have nothing but good things to say about him — he’s an excellent doctor with a great bedside manner. His record is clean, he’s never been reprimanded, he’s built a successful practice, and then this thing just parachutes out of the sky.”

The investigation is ongoing, and detectives from the Sarasota police department have stated that they “believe there may be additional victims.”

Dr. Dattoli was released the day after his arrest on a $1,500 bond. His arraignment is scheduled for January 22. If convicted, he could face prison time, fines, or even lose his license to practice medicine.

Dr. Wolfson added that the arraignment is the first step in the process. “But even if it can be determined that he forged a signature, I don’t think it will rise to a level where his license will be revoked,” he said.

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

Less can sometimes be more. New findings show that low-dose postoperative radiation therapy following transoral surgery led to “outstanding oncologic outcome and favorable functional outcomes” in patients with intermediate-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and oropharynx cancer.

In the phase 2 trial, 95% of patients with locally advanced oropharynx cancer and HPV remained progression free at 2 years following reduced-dose radiation therapy (50 Gy), compared with 96% of patients receiving standard-dose radiation therapy (60 Gy). Both groups avoided chemotherapy as well.

The results, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, suggest that postoperative radiation therapy at 50 Gy without chemotherapy was safe and effective in this intermediate-risk subset of patients, the authors concluded.

Although it’s hard for one trial to define standard of care, this study “may be an example of a practice-changing phase 2 [trial],” said lead author Robert L. Ferris, MD, PhD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center. “We and others have adopted 50 Gy without chemo as our adjuvant treatment for up to 4 positive nodes and 1 mm of extranodal extension.”

Treatment deintensification for patients with HPV and oropharynx cancer is an active area of investigation, but whether undergoing transoral surgery can allow intermediate-risk patients to receive a lower dose of adjuvant therapy remains uncertain.

Recent results from a phase 3 trial, presented during the plenary session at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, showed that de-escalated adjuvant radiation therapy resulted in robust responses and lower toxicity as compared with standard care radiotherapy in patients with HPV and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

The goal of the current ECON-ACRIN (E3311) trial was to prospectively assess the 2-year progression-free survival of transoral surgery and reduced adjuvant therapy in intermediate-risk patients with HPV and oropharynx cancer.

The phase 2 trial included 359 patients with HPV and oropharynx cancer who underwent surgery and were then assigned to one of four treatment groups based on individual risk factors for recurrence: low-risk patients under observation (arm A); intermediate-risk patients receiving low-dose radiation therapy (50 Gy, arm B) and those receiving standard-dose radiation (60 Gy, arm C) both without chemotherapy; and finally high-risk patients receiving chemotherapy in combination with high-dose radiation (arm D).

Among patients who underwent transoral surgery, 11% were assigned to arm A, 28% and 30% were randomly allocated to arms B and C, respectively, and 31% were assigned to arm D. For those who underwent transoral laser microsurgery, 11% were assigned to arm A, 32% and 24% were randomly allocated to arms B and C, respectively, and 34% were assigned to arm D.

Almost all patients (95%) in arm B remained progression free at 2 years after receiving reduced-dose radiation therapy. This rate of progression-free survival aligned with those observed in the other cohorts: 91% in high-risk patients receiving chemotherapy in combination with standard 66 Gy high-dose radiation, 96% in intermediate-risk patients in the 60 Gy standard-dose radiation arm, and 97% in the low-risk observation arm.

Although progression-free survival did not differ statistically between the arms (P = .90 for B vs. C; P = .30 for B vs. D; P = .30 for C vs. D), the authors urged caution when interpreting the results because the study was not powered to compare arms B and C directly.

Overall, these results show that “we could reduce radiation therapy and eliminate chemotherapy for 70% of patients,” Dr. Ferris said in an interview. Plus, “a small group of the lowest-risk [patients] did well with surgery alone.”

Regarding outcomes for quality of life (functional assessment of cancer therapy–head and neck) and swallowing (MD Anderson Dysphagia Index), patients reported a consistent decline in both during treatment. Patient scores, however, recovered to baseline levels in arms A-C and remained slightly lower after adjuvant therapy in arm D; however, it is unknown whether differences will emerge over a longer-term period.

Bhishamjit S. Chera, MD, an associate professor and radiation oncologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that reduced doses are not the current standard of care but it’s the “direction we’re headed.”

“I have started to use lower doses in selected patients” and other experts are offering it as well, said Dr. Chera, who was not involved in the research.

He also said that patients appear very interested in participating in lower-intensity therapy, judging by how rapidly accrual is for clinical trials of this nature.

However, caution is warranted.

“You have to be careful when you reduce intensity and there are different ways of doing it,” Dr. Chera said. “It’s not ready for community practice, and if it is offered to patients, it needs to be explained carefully with informed consent.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ferris has disclosed relationships Novasenta, Merck, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Numab, Macrogenics, Aduro Biotech, Sanofi, Zymeworks, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, and Tesaro. Dr. Chera disclosed stock and other ownership interests in Naveris, and a consulting or advisory role with Naveris. He is a coinventor on a patent application regarding a method for measuring tumor-derived viral nucleic acids in blood samples, which is owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and licensed to Naveris.

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

Less can sometimes be more. New findings show that low-dose postoperative radiation therapy following transoral surgery led to “outstanding oncologic outcome and favorable functional outcomes” in patients with intermediate-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and oropharynx cancer.

In the phase 2 trial, 95% of patients with locally advanced oropharynx cancer and HPV remained progression free at 2 years following reduced-dose radiation therapy (50 Gy), compared with 96% of patients receiving standard-dose radiation therapy (60 Gy). Both groups avoided chemotherapy as well.

The results, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, suggest that postoperative radiation therapy at 50 Gy without chemotherapy was safe and effective in this intermediate-risk subset of patients, the authors concluded.

Although it’s hard for one trial to define standard of care, this study “may be an example of a practice-changing phase 2 [trial],” said lead author Robert L. Ferris, MD, PhD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center. “We and others have adopted 50 Gy without chemo as our adjuvant treatment for up to 4 positive nodes and 1 mm of extranodal extension.”

Treatment deintensification for patients with HPV and oropharynx cancer is an active area of investigation, but whether undergoing transoral surgery can allow intermediate-risk patients to receive a lower dose of adjuvant therapy remains uncertain.

Recent results from a phase 3 trial, presented during the plenary session at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, showed that de-escalated adjuvant radiation therapy resulted in robust responses and lower toxicity as compared with standard care radiotherapy in patients with HPV and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

The goal of the current ECON-ACRIN (E3311) trial was to prospectively assess the 2-year progression-free survival of transoral surgery and reduced adjuvant therapy in intermediate-risk patients with HPV and oropharynx cancer.

The phase 2 trial included 359 patients with HPV and oropharynx cancer who underwent surgery and were then assigned to one of four treatment groups based on individual risk factors for recurrence: low-risk patients under observation (arm A); intermediate-risk patients receiving low-dose radiation therapy (50 Gy, arm B) and those receiving standard-dose radiation (60 Gy, arm C) both without chemotherapy; and finally high-risk patients receiving chemotherapy in combination with high-dose radiation (arm D).

Among patients who underwent transoral surgery, 11% were assigned to arm A, 28% and 30% were randomly allocated to arms B and C, respectively, and 31% were assigned to arm D. For those who underwent transoral laser microsurgery, 11% were assigned to arm A, 32% and 24% were randomly allocated to arms B and C, respectively, and 34% were assigned to arm D.

Almost all patients (95%) in arm B remained progression free at 2 years after receiving reduced-dose radiation therapy. This rate of progression-free survival aligned with those observed in the other cohorts: 91% in high-risk patients receiving chemotherapy in combination with standard 66 Gy high-dose radiation, 96% in intermediate-risk patients in the 60 Gy standard-dose radiation arm, and 97% in the low-risk observation arm.

Although progression-free survival did not differ statistically between the arms (P = .90 for B vs. C; P = .30 for B vs. D; P = .30 for C vs. D), the authors urged caution when interpreting the results because the study was not powered to compare arms B and C directly.

Overall, these results show that “we could reduce radiation therapy and eliminate chemotherapy for 70% of patients,” Dr. Ferris said in an interview. Plus, “a small group of the lowest-risk [patients] did well with surgery alone.”

Regarding outcomes for quality of life (functional assessment of cancer therapy–head and neck) and swallowing (MD Anderson Dysphagia Index), patients reported a consistent decline in both during treatment. Patient scores, however, recovered to baseline levels in arms A-C and remained slightly lower after adjuvant therapy in arm D; however, it is unknown whether differences will emerge over a longer-term period.

Bhishamjit S. Chera, MD, an associate professor and radiation oncologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that reduced doses are not the current standard of care but it’s the “direction we’re headed.”

“I have started to use lower doses in selected patients” and other experts are offering it as well, said Dr. Chera, who was not involved in the research.

He also said that patients appear very interested in participating in lower-intensity therapy, judging by how rapidly accrual is for clinical trials of this nature.

However, caution is warranted.

“You have to be careful when you reduce intensity and there are different ways of doing it,” Dr. Chera said. “It’s not ready for community practice, and if it is offered to patients, it needs to be explained carefully with informed consent.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ferris has disclosed relationships Novasenta, Merck, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Numab, Macrogenics, Aduro Biotech, Sanofi, Zymeworks, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, and Tesaro. Dr. Chera disclosed stock and other ownership interests in Naveris, and a consulting or advisory role with Naveris. He is a coinventor on a patent application regarding a method for measuring tumor-derived viral nucleic acids in blood samples, which is owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and licensed to Naveris.

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

Less can sometimes be more. New findings show that low-dose postoperative radiation therapy following transoral surgery led to “outstanding oncologic outcome and favorable functional outcomes” in patients with intermediate-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and oropharynx cancer.

In the phase 2 trial, 95% of patients with locally advanced oropharynx cancer and HPV remained progression free at 2 years following reduced-dose radiation therapy (50 Gy), compared with 96% of patients receiving standard-dose radiation therapy (60 Gy). Both groups avoided chemotherapy as well.

The results, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, suggest that postoperative radiation therapy at 50 Gy without chemotherapy was safe and effective in this intermediate-risk subset of patients, the authors concluded.

Although it’s hard for one trial to define standard of care, this study “may be an example of a practice-changing phase 2 [trial],” said lead author Robert L. Ferris, MD, PhD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center. “We and others have adopted 50 Gy without chemo as our adjuvant treatment for up to 4 positive nodes and 1 mm of extranodal extension.”

Treatment deintensification for patients with HPV and oropharynx cancer is an active area of investigation, but whether undergoing transoral surgery can allow intermediate-risk patients to receive a lower dose of adjuvant therapy remains uncertain.

Recent results from a phase 3 trial, presented during the plenary session at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, showed that de-escalated adjuvant radiation therapy resulted in robust responses and lower toxicity as compared with standard care radiotherapy in patients with HPV and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

The goal of the current ECON-ACRIN (E3311) trial was to prospectively assess the 2-year progression-free survival of transoral surgery and reduced adjuvant therapy in intermediate-risk patients with HPV and oropharynx cancer.

The phase 2 trial included 359 patients with HPV and oropharynx cancer who underwent surgery and were then assigned to one of four treatment groups based on individual risk factors for recurrence: low-risk patients under observation (arm A); intermediate-risk patients receiving low-dose radiation therapy (50 Gy, arm B) and those receiving standard-dose radiation (60 Gy, arm C) both without chemotherapy; and finally high-risk patients receiving chemotherapy in combination with high-dose radiation (arm D).

Among patients who underwent transoral surgery, 11% were assigned to arm A, 28% and 30% were randomly allocated to arms B and C, respectively, and 31% were assigned to arm D. For those who underwent transoral laser microsurgery, 11% were assigned to arm A, 32% and 24% were randomly allocated to arms B and C, respectively, and 34% were assigned to arm D.

Almost all patients (95%) in arm B remained progression free at 2 years after receiving reduced-dose radiation therapy. This rate of progression-free survival aligned with those observed in the other cohorts: 91% in high-risk patients receiving chemotherapy in combination with standard 66 Gy high-dose radiation, 96% in intermediate-risk patients in the 60 Gy standard-dose radiation arm, and 97% in the low-risk observation arm.

Although progression-free survival did not differ statistically between the arms (P = .90 for B vs. C; P = .30 for B vs. D; P = .30 for C vs. D), the authors urged caution when interpreting the results because the study was not powered to compare arms B and C directly.

Overall, these results show that “we could reduce radiation therapy and eliminate chemotherapy for 70% of patients,” Dr. Ferris said in an interview. Plus, “a small group of the lowest-risk [patients] did well with surgery alone.”

Regarding outcomes for quality of life (functional assessment of cancer therapy–head and neck) and swallowing (MD Anderson Dysphagia Index), patients reported a consistent decline in both during treatment. Patient scores, however, recovered to baseline levels in arms A-C and remained slightly lower after adjuvant therapy in arm D; however, it is unknown whether differences will emerge over a longer-term period.

Bhishamjit S. Chera, MD, an associate professor and radiation oncologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that reduced doses are not the current standard of care but it’s the “direction we’re headed.”

“I have started to use lower doses in selected patients” and other experts are offering it as well, said Dr. Chera, who was not involved in the research.

He also said that patients appear very interested in participating in lower-intensity therapy, judging by how rapidly accrual is for clinical trials of this nature.

However, caution is warranted.

“You have to be careful when you reduce intensity and there are different ways of doing it,” Dr. Chera said. “It’s not ready for community practice, and if it is offered to patients, it needs to be explained carefully with informed consent.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ferris has disclosed relationships Novasenta, Merck, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Numab, Macrogenics, Aduro Biotech, Sanofi, Zymeworks, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, and Tesaro. Dr. Chera disclosed stock and other ownership interests in Naveris, and a consulting or advisory role with Naveris. He is a coinventor on a patent application regarding a method for measuring tumor-derived viral nucleic acids in blood samples, which is owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and licensed to Naveris.

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

Final results from a large phase 3 trial confirm no benefit to adding palbociclib (Ibrance) to endocrine therapy in early hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Two years of adjuvant palbociclib added to endocrine therapy failed to improve invasive disease-free survival or any other efficacy endpoint in patients with stage II-III HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

“These definitive findings from the PALLAS trial, already indicated by an interim analysis, are surprising given the established efficacy of palbociclib and other CDK4/6i [inhibitors] in advanced breast cancer,” according to lead author Michael Gnant, MD, professor in the department of surgery, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues.

The results from the PALLAS trial were presented Dec. 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

At a median follow-up of 31 months and at the final protocol-defined analysis, invasive disease-free survival events occurred in 253 (8.8%) of 2,884 patients who received the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor plus endocrine therapy and in 263 (9.1%) of 2,877 patients who received endocrine therapy alone. At 4 years, invasive disease-free survival rates were similar in the palbociclib group (84.2%) and standard treatment group (84.5%).
 

Caught by surprise

Studies have shown that combining CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, with good tolerability.

“CDK4/6 inhibitors have markedly changed outcomes in the metastatic setting and are now standard of care,” said Dr. Gnant, who presented the recent findings at SABCS. “It seem[ed] only logical to try to transfer these benefits to the curative setting of early breast cancer.”

But in 2020, palbociclib manufacturer Pfizer issued a press release noting that the PALLAS trial was unlikely to show a statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival.

The results “caught many of us by surprise,” Kathy D. Miller, MD, codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, wrote in response to this announcement.

The trial was based on strong science and incredibly positive results in the metastatic setting but did not meet its primary endpoint when incorporated into the adjuvant setting, Dr. Miller noted in a Medscape blog. “That is certainly not the result we had hoped for, and it’s not the result many of us were expecting.”

Dr. Miller emphasized that “more than anything else, this trial reminds us of the absolute necessity of putting our ideas to the test and doing appropriately powered, appropriately controlled, and well-conducted randomized trials.”

The PALLAS trial enrolled 5,796 patients from 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over a 3-year period, with 5,761 included in the intention-to-treat population.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for at least 5 years.

Dr. Gnant and colleagues found that the primary endpoint – invasive disease-free survival – did not differ significantly different between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .65). Secondary endpoints in the palbociclib versus no-palbociclib groups were also similar: 4-year survival rates for invasive breast cancer-free survival were 85.4% versus 86%, distant recurrence-free survival was 86.2% versus 87.8%, locoregional recurrence-free survival was 96.8% versus 95.4%, and overall survival was 93.8% versus 95.2%.

The main side effect of palbociclib was neutropenia, but there were no new safety signals, Dr. Gnant explained. He noted, however, that the rates of palbociclib discontinuation were monitored closely and were substantial. At 1 year, 30% of patients discontinued palbociclib and by 24 months, 45% had stopped.
 

Not the final word?

An interim analysis of the phase 3 monarchE trial did not align with the PALLAS trial.

The monarchE trial found that adding the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of early recurrence, compared with endocrine therapy alone in the same patient populations – those with early HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The researchers reported the combination was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction of invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.75; P =.0096).

The research was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Miller speculated how about how these two drugs that look so similar in the metastatic setting have given such different results in the adjuvant setting. One potential reason is pure chance.

“Any study, no matter how many zeros in the P value, could be simply the play of chance,” she said in an interview. “And that is true for negative and positive studies.”

The fault could also lie in the study design. “Remember, these are agents that we think of as reversing endocrine resistance and extending the benefit of hormone therapy,” she pointed out. “And yet we looked at very early results. Perhaps the study design was just wrong for palbociclib.”

Yet another possibility: The relative potency of those two CDK4/6 inhibitors could differ. “In a metastatic setting, that did not seem to affect effectiveness, but it clearly affected the toxicity profile. Perhaps in the adjuvant setting, those differences really do drive differences in efficacy,” she said.

Dr. Gnant also speculated that differences in the treatment schedules for the two drugs, as abemaciclib is taken continuously without a break, could potentially explain the different efficacies in the early breast cancer setting.

He called for long-term follow up, saying it’s essential for comprehensively examining outcomes in HR-positive luminal breast cancers.

“Ongoing analyses in the Trans-PALLAS translational and clinical science program, with almost 6,000 tumor blocks and tens of thousands of blood samples, will improve understanding of CD4/6 inhibition as well as contemporary management of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Gnant said.

The trial was funded by Pfizer, who provided study drug and financial support. In addition, the academic organizations ABCSG and AFT supported the trial by providing human resources. Dr. Gnant reported employment at Sandoz; receiving honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly; and consulting or advisory roles at Daiichi Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar¸ LifeBrain, and Lilly.

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

Final results from a large phase 3 trial confirm no benefit to adding palbociclib (Ibrance) to endocrine therapy in early hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Two years of adjuvant palbociclib added to endocrine therapy failed to improve invasive disease-free survival or any other efficacy endpoint in patients with stage II-III HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

“These definitive findings from the PALLAS trial, already indicated by an interim analysis, are surprising given the established efficacy of palbociclib and other CDK4/6i [inhibitors] in advanced breast cancer,” according to lead author Michael Gnant, MD, professor in the department of surgery, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues.

The results from the PALLAS trial were presented Dec. 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

At a median follow-up of 31 months and at the final protocol-defined analysis, invasive disease-free survival events occurred in 253 (8.8%) of 2,884 patients who received the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor plus endocrine therapy and in 263 (9.1%) of 2,877 patients who received endocrine therapy alone. At 4 years, invasive disease-free survival rates were similar in the palbociclib group (84.2%) and standard treatment group (84.5%).
 

Caught by surprise

Studies have shown that combining CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, with good tolerability.

“CDK4/6 inhibitors have markedly changed outcomes in the metastatic setting and are now standard of care,” said Dr. Gnant, who presented the recent findings at SABCS. “It seem[ed] only logical to try to transfer these benefits to the curative setting of early breast cancer.”

But in 2020, palbociclib manufacturer Pfizer issued a press release noting that the PALLAS trial was unlikely to show a statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival.

The results “caught many of us by surprise,” Kathy D. Miller, MD, codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, wrote in response to this announcement.

The trial was based on strong science and incredibly positive results in the metastatic setting but did not meet its primary endpoint when incorporated into the adjuvant setting, Dr. Miller noted in a Medscape blog. “That is certainly not the result we had hoped for, and it’s not the result many of us were expecting.”

Dr. Miller emphasized that “more than anything else, this trial reminds us of the absolute necessity of putting our ideas to the test and doing appropriately powered, appropriately controlled, and well-conducted randomized trials.”

The PALLAS trial enrolled 5,796 patients from 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over a 3-year period, with 5,761 included in the intention-to-treat population.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for at least 5 years.

Dr. Gnant and colleagues found that the primary endpoint – invasive disease-free survival – did not differ significantly different between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .65). Secondary endpoints in the palbociclib versus no-palbociclib groups were also similar: 4-year survival rates for invasive breast cancer-free survival were 85.4% versus 86%, distant recurrence-free survival was 86.2% versus 87.8%, locoregional recurrence-free survival was 96.8% versus 95.4%, and overall survival was 93.8% versus 95.2%.

The main side effect of palbociclib was neutropenia, but there were no new safety signals, Dr. Gnant explained. He noted, however, that the rates of palbociclib discontinuation were monitored closely and were substantial. At 1 year, 30% of patients discontinued palbociclib and by 24 months, 45% had stopped.
 

Not the final word?

An interim analysis of the phase 3 monarchE trial did not align with the PALLAS trial.

The monarchE trial found that adding the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of early recurrence, compared with endocrine therapy alone in the same patient populations – those with early HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The researchers reported the combination was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction of invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.75; P =.0096).

The research was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Miller speculated how about how these two drugs that look so similar in the metastatic setting have given such different results in the adjuvant setting. One potential reason is pure chance.

“Any study, no matter how many zeros in the P value, could be simply the play of chance,” she said in an interview. “And that is true for negative and positive studies.”

The fault could also lie in the study design. “Remember, these are agents that we think of as reversing endocrine resistance and extending the benefit of hormone therapy,” she pointed out. “And yet we looked at very early results. Perhaps the study design was just wrong for palbociclib.”

Yet another possibility: The relative potency of those two CDK4/6 inhibitors could differ. “In a metastatic setting, that did not seem to affect effectiveness, but it clearly affected the toxicity profile. Perhaps in the adjuvant setting, those differences really do drive differences in efficacy,” she said.

Dr. Gnant also speculated that differences in the treatment schedules for the two drugs, as abemaciclib is taken continuously without a break, could potentially explain the different efficacies in the early breast cancer setting.

He called for long-term follow up, saying it’s essential for comprehensively examining outcomes in HR-positive luminal breast cancers.

“Ongoing analyses in the Trans-PALLAS translational and clinical science program, with almost 6,000 tumor blocks and tens of thousands of blood samples, will improve understanding of CD4/6 inhibition as well as contemporary management of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Gnant said.

The trial was funded by Pfizer, who provided study drug and financial support. In addition, the academic organizations ABCSG and AFT supported the trial by providing human resources. Dr. Gnant reported employment at Sandoz; receiving honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly; and consulting or advisory roles at Daiichi Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar¸ LifeBrain, and Lilly.

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

Final results from a large phase 3 trial confirm no benefit to adding palbociclib (Ibrance) to endocrine therapy in early hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Two years of adjuvant palbociclib added to endocrine therapy failed to improve invasive disease-free survival or any other efficacy endpoint in patients with stage II-III HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

“These definitive findings from the PALLAS trial, already indicated by an interim analysis, are surprising given the established efficacy of palbociclib and other CDK4/6i [inhibitors] in advanced breast cancer,” according to lead author Michael Gnant, MD, professor in the department of surgery, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues.

The results from the PALLAS trial were presented Dec. 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

At a median follow-up of 31 months and at the final protocol-defined analysis, invasive disease-free survival events occurred in 253 (8.8%) of 2,884 patients who received the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor plus endocrine therapy and in 263 (9.1%) of 2,877 patients who received endocrine therapy alone. At 4 years, invasive disease-free survival rates were similar in the palbociclib group (84.2%) and standard treatment group (84.5%).
 

Caught by surprise

Studies have shown that combining CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, with good tolerability.

“CDK4/6 inhibitors have markedly changed outcomes in the metastatic setting and are now standard of care,” said Dr. Gnant, who presented the recent findings at SABCS. “It seem[ed] only logical to try to transfer these benefits to the curative setting of early breast cancer.”

But in 2020, palbociclib manufacturer Pfizer issued a press release noting that the PALLAS trial was unlikely to show a statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival.

The results “caught many of us by surprise,” Kathy D. Miller, MD, codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, wrote in response to this announcement.

The trial was based on strong science and incredibly positive results in the metastatic setting but did not meet its primary endpoint when incorporated into the adjuvant setting, Dr. Miller noted in a Medscape blog. “That is certainly not the result we had hoped for, and it’s not the result many of us were expecting.”

Dr. Miller emphasized that “more than anything else, this trial reminds us of the absolute necessity of putting our ideas to the test and doing appropriately powered, appropriately controlled, and well-conducted randomized trials.”

The PALLAS trial enrolled 5,796 patients from 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over a 3-year period, with 5,761 included in the intention-to-treat population.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for at least 5 years.

Dr. Gnant and colleagues found that the primary endpoint – invasive disease-free survival – did not differ significantly different between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .65). Secondary endpoints in the palbociclib versus no-palbociclib groups were also similar: 4-year survival rates for invasive breast cancer-free survival were 85.4% versus 86%, distant recurrence-free survival was 86.2% versus 87.8%, locoregional recurrence-free survival was 96.8% versus 95.4%, and overall survival was 93.8% versus 95.2%.

The main side effect of palbociclib was neutropenia, but there were no new safety signals, Dr. Gnant explained. He noted, however, that the rates of palbociclib discontinuation were monitored closely and were substantial. At 1 year, 30% of patients discontinued palbociclib and by 24 months, 45% had stopped.
 

Not the final word?

An interim analysis of the phase 3 monarchE trial did not align with the PALLAS trial.

The monarchE trial found that adding the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of early recurrence, compared with endocrine therapy alone in the same patient populations – those with early HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The researchers reported the combination was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction of invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.75; P =.0096).

The research was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Miller speculated how about how these two drugs that look so similar in the metastatic setting have given such different results in the adjuvant setting. One potential reason is pure chance.

“Any study, no matter how many zeros in the P value, could be simply the play of chance,” she said in an interview. “And that is true for negative and positive studies.”

The fault could also lie in the study design. “Remember, these are agents that we think of as reversing endocrine resistance and extending the benefit of hormone therapy,” she pointed out. “And yet we looked at very early results. Perhaps the study design was just wrong for palbociclib.”

Yet another possibility: The relative potency of those two CDK4/6 inhibitors could differ. “In a metastatic setting, that did not seem to affect effectiveness, but it clearly affected the toxicity profile. Perhaps in the adjuvant setting, those differences really do drive differences in efficacy,” she said.

Dr. Gnant also speculated that differences in the treatment schedules for the two drugs, as abemaciclib is taken continuously without a break, could potentially explain the different efficacies in the early breast cancer setting.

He called for long-term follow up, saying it’s essential for comprehensively examining outcomes in HR-positive luminal breast cancers.

“Ongoing analyses in the Trans-PALLAS translational and clinical science program, with almost 6,000 tumor blocks and tens of thousands of blood samples, will improve understanding of CD4/6 inhibition as well as contemporary management of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Gnant said.

The trial was funded by Pfizer, who provided study drug and financial support. In addition, the academic organizations ABCSG and AFT supported the trial by providing human resources. Dr. Gnant reported employment at Sandoz; receiving honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly; and consulting or advisory roles at Daiichi Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar¸ LifeBrain, and Lilly.

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

Adjuvant treatment with metformin did not improve outcomes in most patients with early breast cancer, according to new findings from a randomized controlled trial.

In the primary analysis, the addition of metformin to standard therapy in moderate/high-risk hormone receptor positive or negative breast cancer did not improve invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), overall survival, or other breast outcomes, explained lead author Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, FRCPC, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. “Metformin should not be used as breast cancer treatment in this population.”

However, an exploratory analysis suggested that metformin may have a beneficial effect in women with HER2-positive breast cancer, Dr. Goodwin noted.

In this subset, IDFS was improved in patients who received metformin (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .03), as was overall survival (HR, 0.53; P = .04).

The findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“This trial arose from the observation that obesity is associated with poor breast cancer outcomes, and insulin levels are higher in obesity and may be more strongly associated with breast cancer outcomes than obesity,” said Dr. Goodwin.

Metformin was used because of its ability to promote modest weight loss and lower insulin by about 15%-20% in nondiabetic breast cancer survivors. It has also shown anticancer effects in preclinical studies. “In some window of opportunity neoadjuvant studies, it has been shown to reduce Ki67 in breast cancer cells,” she said. “And in preclinical in vitro and in vivo research, it slows growth of breast cancer.”

In addition, emerging evidence from observational studies suggests that the use of metformin to treat diabetes in breast cancer patients may be associated with better outcomes, strengthening the rationale for the study.

The negative results in breast cancer follow recent reports of negative findings in lung cancer, when metformin was found to be ineffective when used alongside chemotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer, as reported by this news organization.
 

No benefit seen

Metformin was compared to placebo in the phase 3 CCTG MA.32 trial, conducted in 3,649 patients aged 18-74 years with T1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer. All patients were treated with standard therapy and were randomized to receive metformin 850 mg twice daily for 5 years or placebo.

In 2016, “futility was declared in ER/PR-negative patients” after a second interim analysis conducted at 29.6 months’ median follow-up, Dr. Goodwin noted. The intervention was stopped in that group, although blinding and follow-up continued.

After that, the study’s primary analysis focused on the 2,533 ER/PR-positive patients (mean age, 52.7 years; mean body mass index, 28.8; approx. 60% postmenopausal).

Just over half of these patients had T2 tumor stage, and most disease was grade 2 or 3.

In addition, 16.5% (of metformin) and 17.4% (of placebo) patients had HER2-positive disease, with the majority (97%) of all HER2 patients receiving trastuzumab.

There was no difference between the two groups in IDFS events, occurring in 18.5% of patients receiving metformin and 18.3% who received placebo, with most (75.6%) events due to breast cancer (HR, 1.01; P = .92).

There were 131 deaths in the metformin arm and 119 in the placebo arm, with most (75.8%) of the deaths related to breast cancer (HR, 1.10; P = .47).

Other breast cancer outcomes had similar results, including distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.99; P = .94) and breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98; P = .87), both of which showed no advantage for metformin.
 

Possible HER2 advantage

However, the exploratory analysis suggested there may be an advantage for patients with HER2-positive disease, but primarily those who had at least one C allele of a prespecified ATM associated rs11212617 SNP. These patients achieved a higher pathologic complete response rate with metformin than that of those without the allele.

There were 620 patients with HER2-positive disease analyzed, with 99.4% receiving chemotherapy and 96.5% receiving trastuzumab. There were 99 IDFS events, and 47 OS events.

In the entire HER2-positive cohort, patients who received metformin had fewer IDFS events (HR, 0.64; P = .026) compared with the placebo arm. Mortality was lower with metformin (HR for overall survival, 0.53; P = .038).

“Subjects with HER2-positive breast cancer, notably those with at least one C allele of the ATM-associated rs11212617 SNP, experienced improved IDFS and overall survival with metformin,” Dr. Goodwin concluded. “However, no P-value ‘spend’ was allocated to this comparison. As a result, it requires replication in a prospective trial focusing on the HER2-positive population.”
 

More research?

Stephanie Bernik, MD, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of breast surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was approached by this news organization for an independent comment.

“It has long been known that obesity, which often correlates with diabetes, increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer,” she said.

“This study tried to show that using a medication that helps control insulin levels, even in those without diabetes, might decrease one’s risk of breast cancer,” she said. “Unfortunately, using metformin had no effect on outcomes in this study, even though it has shown promise in other studies. Perhaps more research needs to be carried out to try to pinpoint which mechanisms of action, if any, might be helpful to combat cancer in those with and without diabetes.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Breast Cancer Researcher Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Canadian Cancer Society, Apotex, Swiss Cancer Research, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr. Goodwin has no disclosures.

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

Adjuvant treatment with metformin did not improve outcomes in most patients with early breast cancer, according to new findings from a randomized controlled trial.

In the primary analysis, the addition of metformin to standard therapy in moderate/high-risk hormone receptor positive or negative breast cancer did not improve invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), overall survival, or other breast outcomes, explained lead author Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, FRCPC, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. “Metformin should not be used as breast cancer treatment in this population.”

However, an exploratory analysis suggested that metformin may have a beneficial effect in women with HER2-positive breast cancer, Dr. Goodwin noted.

In this subset, IDFS was improved in patients who received metformin (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .03), as was overall survival (HR, 0.53; P = .04).

The findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“This trial arose from the observation that obesity is associated with poor breast cancer outcomes, and insulin levels are higher in obesity and may be more strongly associated with breast cancer outcomes than obesity,” said Dr. Goodwin.

Metformin was used because of its ability to promote modest weight loss and lower insulin by about 15%-20% in nondiabetic breast cancer survivors. It has also shown anticancer effects in preclinical studies. “In some window of opportunity neoadjuvant studies, it has been shown to reduce Ki67 in breast cancer cells,” she said. “And in preclinical in vitro and in vivo research, it slows growth of breast cancer.”

In addition, emerging evidence from observational studies suggests that the use of metformin to treat diabetes in breast cancer patients may be associated with better outcomes, strengthening the rationale for the study.

The negative results in breast cancer follow recent reports of negative findings in lung cancer, when metformin was found to be ineffective when used alongside chemotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer, as reported by this news organization.
 

No benefit seen

Metformin was compared to placebo in the phase 3 CCTG MA.32 trial, conducted in 3,649 patients aged 18-74 years with T1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer. All patients were treated with standard therapy and were randomized to receive metformin 850 mg twice daily for 5 years or placebo.

In 2016, “futility was declared in ER/PR-negative patients” after a second interim analysis conducted at 29.6 months’ median follow-up, Dr. Goodwin noted. The intervention was stopped in that group, although blinding and follow-up continued.

After that, the study’s primary analysis focused on the 2,533 ER/PR-positive patients (mean age, 52.7 years; mean body mass index, 28.8; approx. 60% postmenopausal).

Just over half of these patients had T2 tumor stage, and most disease was grade 2 or 3.

In addition, 16.5% (of metformin) and 17.4% (of placebo) patients had HER2-positive disease, with the majority (97%) of all HER2 patients receiving trastuzumab.

There was no difference between the two groups in IDFS events, occurring in 18.5% of patients receiving metformin and 18.3% who received placebo, with most (75.6%) events due to breast cancer (HR, 1.01; P = .92).

There were 131 deaths in the metformin arm and 119 in the placebo arm, with most (75.8%) of the deaths related to breast cancer (HR, 1.10; P = .47).

Other breast cancer outcomes had similar results, including distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.99; P = .94) and breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98; P = .87), both of which showed no advantage for metformin.
 

Possible HER2 advantage

However, the exploratory analysis suggested there may be an advantage for patients with HER2-positive disease, but primarily those who had at least one C allele of a prespecified ATM associated rs11212617 SNP. These patients achieved a higher pathologic complete response rate with metformin than that of those without the allele.

There were 620 patients with HER2-positive disease analyzed, with 99.4% receiving chemotherapy and 96.5% receiving trastuzumab. There were 99 IDFS events, and 47 OS events.

In the entire HER2-positive cohort, patients who received metformin had fewer IDFS events (HR, 0.64; P = .026) compared with the placebo arm. Mortality was lower with metformin (HR for overall survival, 0.53; P = .038).

“Subjects with HER2-positive breast cancer, notably those with at least one C allele of the ATM-associated rs11212617 SNP, experienced improved IDFS and overall survival with metformin,” Dr. Goodwin concluded. “However, no P-value ‘spend’ was allocated to this comparison. As a result, it requires replication in a prospective trial focusing on the HER2-positive population.”
 

More research?

Stephanie Bernik, MD, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of breast surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was approached by this news organization for an independent comment.

“It has long been known that obesity, which often correlates with diabetes, increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer,” she said.

“This study tried to show that using a medication that helps control insulin levels, even in those without diabetes, might decrease one’s risk of breast cancer,” she said. “Unfortunately, using metformin had no effect on outcomes in this study, even though it has shown promise in other studies. Perhaps more research needs to be carried out to try to pinpoint which mechanisms of action, if any, might be helpful to combat cancer in those with and without diabetes.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Breast Cancer Researcher Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Canadian Cancer Society, Apotex, Swiss Cancer Research, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr. Goodwin has no disclosures.

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

Adjuvant treatment with metformin did not improve outcomes in most patients with early breast cancer, according to new findings from a randomized controlled trial.

In the primary analysis, the addition of metformin to standard therapy in moderate/high-risk hormone receptor positive or negative breast cancer did not improve invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), overall survival, or other breast outcomes, explained lead author Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, FRCPC, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. “Metformin should not be used as breast cancer treatment in this population.”

However, an exploratory analysis suggested that metformin may have a beneficial effect in women with HER2-positive breast cancer, Dr. Goodwin noted.

In this subset, IDFS was improved in patients who received metformin (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .03), as was overall survival (HR, 0.53; P = .04).

The findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“This trial arose from the observation that obesity is associated with poor breast cancer outcomes, and insulin levels are higher in obesity and may be more strongly associated with breast cancer outcomes than obesity,” said Dr. Goodwin.

Metformin was used because of its ability to promote modest weight loss and lower insulin by about 15%-20% in nondiabetic breast cancer survivors. It has also shown anticancer effects in preclinical studies. “In some window of opportunity neoadjuvant studies, it has been shown to reduce Ki67 in breast cancer cells,” she said. “And in preclinical in vitro and in vivo research, it slows growth of breast cancer.”

In addition, emerging evidence from observational studies suggests that the use of metformin to treat diabetes in breast cancer patients may be associated with better outcomes, strengthening the rationale for the study.

The negative results in breast cancer follow recent reports of negative findings in lung cancer, when metformin was found to be ineffective when used alongside chemotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer, as reported by this news organization.
 

No benefit seen

Metformin was compared to placebo in the phase 3 CCTG MA.32 trial, conducted in 3,649 patients aged 18-74 years with T1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer. All patients were treated with standard therapy and were randomized to receive metformin 850 mg twice daily for 5 years or placebo.

In 2016, “futility was declared in ER/PR-negative patients” after a second interim analysis conducted at 29.6 months’ median follow-up, Dr. Goodwin noted. The intervention was stopped in that group, although blinding and follow-up continued.

After that, the study’s primary analysis focused on the 2,533 ER/PR-positive patients (mean age, 52.7 years; mean body mass index, 28.8; approx. 60% postmenopausal).

Just over half of these patients had T2 tumor stage, and most disease was grade 2 or 3.

In addition, 16.5% (of metformin) and 17.4% (of placebo) patients had HER2-positive disease, with the majority (97%) of all HER2 patients receiving trastuzumab.

There was no difference between the two groups in IDFS events, occurring in 18.5% of patients receiving metformin and 18.3% who received placebo, with most (75.6%) events due to breast cancer (HR, 1.01; P = .92).

There were 131 deaths in the metformin arm and 119 in the placebo arm, with most (75.8%) of the deaths related to breast cancer (HR, 1.10; P = .47).

Other breast cancer outcomes had similar results, including distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.99; P = .94) and breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98; P = .87), both of which showed no advantage for metformin.
 

Possible HER2 advantage

However, the exploratory analysis suggested there may be an advantage for patients with HER2-positive disease, but primarily those who had at least one C allele of a prespecified ATM associated rs11212617 SNP. These patients achieved a higher pathologic complete response rate with metformin than that of those without the allele.

There were 620 patients with HER2-positive disease analyzed, with 99.4% receiving chemotherapy and 96.5% receiving trastuzumab. There were 99 IDFS events, and 47 OS events.

In the entire HER2-positive cohort, patients who received metformin had fewer IDFS events (HR, 0.64; P = .026) compared with the placebo arm. Mortality was lower with metformin (HR for overall survival, 0.53; P = .038).

“Subjects with HER2-positive breast cancer, notably those with at least one C allele of the ATM-associated rs11212617 SNP, experienced improved IDFS and overall survival with metformin,” Dr. Goodwin concluded. “However, no P-value ‘spend’ was allocated to this comparison. As a result, it requires replication in a prospective trial focusing on the HER2-positive population.”
 

More research?

Stephanie Bernik, MD, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of breast surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was approached by this news organization for an independent comment.

“It has long been known that obesity, which often correlates with diabetes, increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer,” she said.

“This study tried to show that using a medication that helps control insulin levels, even in those without diabetes, might decrease one’s risk of breast cancer,” she said. “Unfortunately, using metformin had no effect on outcomes in this study, even though it has shown promise in other studies. Perhaps more research needs to be carried out to try to pinpoint which mechanisms of action, if any, might be helpful to combat cancer in those with and without diabetes.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Breast Cancer Researcher Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Canadian Cancer Society, Apotex, Swiss Cancer Research, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr. Goodwin has no disclosures.

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

As compared with standard of care, an investigational oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) demonstrated a 30% lower risk of death or disease progression in women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Findings from the phase 3 EMERALD trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed that the effects of elacestrant (Menarini and Radius Health) were even more pronounced in women with ESR1 mutations. Women in the elacestrant arm had a 45% reduced risk of death or disease progression in comparison with those who received standard of care.

This new agent is the “first oral SERD to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second- and third-line settings,” said lead author Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at Mass General Cancer Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Clinically, elacestrant has the potential to become the new standard of care in the study population.”

Endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors remain the mainstay for the management of ER-positive/HER2 metastatic breast cancer. However, most patients will eventually develop resistance to these agents, often caused by the development of ESR1 mutations.

At the current time, fulvestrant is the only SERD available on the U.S. market, which means there is an urgent unmet need for new, effective SERDs in this setting, especially for patients harboring ESR1 mutations, Dr. Bardia explained.

In an early phase 1 trial, Dr. Bardia and his team evaluated elacestrant for safety and antitumor activity and found it had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated single-agent activity with confirmed partial responses in heavily pretreated patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

This trial provided the rationale for investigating elacestrant in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Bardia said.

The multicenter, randomized, controlled phase 3 EMERALD trial included 477 postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients had also progressed on prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Patients were randomized to elacestrant 400 mg orally daily (n = 239) or standard of care (investigator’s choice of fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor, n = 238). The cohorts were further stratified by ESR1 mutation status, prior fulvestrant exposure, and presence of visceral disease.

The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations and in the entire cohort. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, tolerability, and quality of life.

“This was a positive study as it met both primary endpoints,” said Dr. Bardia.

The team found a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death in the elacestrant arm for all patients (hazard ratio, 0.697; P = .0018) and a 45% (HR, 0.546; P =.0005) reduction in the risk of progression or death among those with ESR1 mutations.

At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 22.32% with elacestrant versus 9.42% for those receiving the standard of care. Among the ESR1 mutation group, those rates were slightly more pronounced: 26.76% with elacestrant versus 8.19% with standard of care.

Overall survival data were not yet mature but trended in favor of elacestrant in all patients (HR, 0.751; P = .0821) as well as those with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.592; P = .0325). The final overall survival analysis is expected next year, Dr. Bardia said.

Common treatment-related adverse events with elacestrant versus standard of care included mostly grade 1 or 2 nausea (25.3% vs. 8.7%), vomiting (11% vs. 2.6%), and fatigue (11% vs. 7.9%). The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 7.2% in the elacestrant arm versus 3.1% in the standard of care group and was mainly driven by nausea. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of elacestrant or standard of care were infrequent in both arms (6.3% and 4.4%, respectively). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

Dr. Bardia added that further studies are planned and assess the efficacy of elacestrant during earlier lines of treatment and in combination with other therapies, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Weighing in on the recent findings, Carlos Arteaga, MD, who was not involved in the research, said this represents an important study evaluating a therapeutic priority.

“The data suggest that [elacestrant] may be a new option, not only as monotherapy but in combination with other therapies,” Dr. Arteaga, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of SABCS, said in an interview.

Coral Omene, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and assistant professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, both in New Brunswick, also commented on the importance of the EMERALD results.

“I would think that this is practice changing,” said Dr. Omene, who was also not involved in the research. The new oral SERD “demonstrates a significant advantage in progression-free survival over either fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.”

An oral drug could also potentially save patients from painful injections that can occasionally result in injection-site abscesses from long-term administration, she explained. “It’s also more convenient to take oral pills at home. It saves on transportation and omits waiting in treatment rooms for administrations.”

Although the overall survival data are not yet mature and the rate of adverse events was higher with elacestrant, “progression-free survival is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival and is reasonable to consider a treatment regimen based on this while awaiting mature survival data,” Dr. Omene added. “The increase in nausea and vomiting seen in oral SERD arm is likely manageable, as there were no significant differences in discontinuation in both arms of treatment.”

The study was supported by Radius Health. Dr. Bardia has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Radius Health, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, and Foundation Medicine. He has conducted contracted research or received grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

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

As compared with standard of care, an investigational oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) demonstrated a 30% lower risk of death or disease progression in women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Findings from the phase 3 EMERALD trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed that the effects of elacestrant (Menarini and Radius Health) were even more pronounced in women with ESR1 mutations. Women in the elacestrant arm had a 45% reduced risk of death or disease progression in comparison with those who received standard of care.

This new agent is the “first oral SERD to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second- and third-line settings,” said lead author Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at Mass General Cancer Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Clinically, elacestrant has the potential to become the new standard of care in the study population.”

Endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors remain the mainstay for the management of ER-positive/HER2 metastatic breast cancer. However, most patients will eventually develop resistance to these agents, often caused by the development of ESR1 mutations.

At the current time, fulvestrant is the only SERD available on the U.S. market, which means there is an urgent unmet need for new, effective SERDs in this setting, especially for patients harboring ESR1 mutations, Dr. Bardia explained.

In an early phase 1 trial, Dr. Bardia and his team evaluated elacestrant for safety and antitumor activity and found it had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated single-agent activity with confirmed partial responses in heavily pretreated patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

This trial provided the rationale for investigating elacestrant in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Bardia said.

The multicenter, randomized, controlled phase 3 EMERALD trial included 477 postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients had also progressed on prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Patients were randomized to elacestrant 400 mg orally daily (n = 239) or standard of care (investigator’s choice of fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor, n = 238). The cohorts were further stratified by ESR1 mutation status, prior fulvestrant exposure, and presence of visceral disease.

The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations and in the entire cohort. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, tolerability, and quality of life.

“This was a positive study as it met both primary endpoints,” said Dr. Bardia.

The team found a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death in the elacestrant arm for all patients (hazard ratio, 0.697; P = .0018) and a 45% (HR, 0.546; P =.0005) reduction in the risk of progression or death among those with ESR1 mutations.

At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 22.32% with elacestrant versus 9.42% for those receiving the standard of care. Among the ESR1 mutation group, those rates were slightly more pronounced: 26.76% with elacestrant versus 8.19% with standard of care.

Overall survival data were not yet mature but trended in favor of elacestrant in all patients (HR, 0.751; P = .0821) as well as those with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.592; P = .0325). The final overall survival analysis is expected next year, Dr. Bardia said.

Common treatment-related adverse events with elacestrant versus standard of care included mostly grade 1 or 2 nausea (25.3% vs. 8.7%), vomiting (11% vs. 2.6%), and fatigue (11% vs. 7.9%). The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 7.2% in the elacestrant arm versus 3.1% in the standard of care group and was mainly driven by nausea. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of elacestrant or standard of care were infrequent in both arms (6.3% and 4.4%, respectively). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

Dr. Bardia added that further studies are planned and assess the efficacy of elacestrant during earlier lines of treatment and in combination with other therapies, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Weighing in on the recent findings, Carlos Arteaga, MD, who was not involved in the research, said this represents an important study evaluating a therapeutic priority.

“The data suggest that [elacestrant] may be a new option, not only as monotherapy but in combination with other therapies,” Dr. Arteaga, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of SABCS, said in an interview.

Coral Omene, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and assistant professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, both in New Brunswick, also commented on the importance of the EMERALD results.

“I would think that this is practice changing,” said Dr. Omene, who was also not involved in the research. The new oral SERD “demonstrates a significant advantage in progression-free survival over either fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.”

An oral drug could also potentially save patients from painful injections that can occasionally result in injection-site abscesses from long-term administration, she explained. “It’s also more convenient to take oral pills at home. It saves on transportation and omits waiting in treatment rooms for administrations.”

Although the overall survival data are not yet mature and the rate of adverse events was higher with elacestrant, “progression-free survival is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival and is reasonable to consider a treatment regimen based on this while awaiting mature survival data,” Dr. Omene added. “The increase in nausea and vomiting seen in oral SERD arm is likely manageable, as there were no significant differences in discontinuation in both arms of treatment.”

The study was supported by Radius Health. Dr. Bardia has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Radius Health, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, and Foundation Medicine. He has conducted contracted research or received grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

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

As compared with standard of care, an investigational oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) demonstrated a 30% lower risk of death or disease progression in women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Findings from the phase 3 EMERALD trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed that the effects of elacestrant (Menarini and Radius Health) were even more pronounced in women with ESR1 mutations. Women in the elacestrant arm had a 45% reduced risk of death or disease progression in comparison with those who received standard of care.

This new agent is the “first oral SERD to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second- and third-line settings,” said lead author Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at Mass General Cancer Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Clinically, elacestrant has the potential to become the new standard of care in the study population.”

Endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors remain the mainstay for the management of ER-positive/HER2 metastatic breast cancer. However, most patients will eventually develop resistance to these agents, often caused by the development of ESR1 mutations.

At the current time, fulvestrant is the only SERD available on the U.S. market, which means there is an urgent unmet need for new, effective SERDs in this setting, especially for patients harboring ESR1 mutations, Dr. Bardia explained.

In an early phase 1 trial, Dr. Bardia and his team evaluated elacestrant for safety and antitumor activity and found it had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated single-agent activity with confirmed partial responses in heavily pretreated patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

This trial provided the rationale for investigating elacestrant in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Bardia said.

The multicenter, randomized, controlled phase 3 EMERALD trial included 477 postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients had also progressed on prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Patients were randomized to elacestrant 400 mg orally daily (n = 239) or standard of care (investigator’s choice of fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor, n = 238). The cohorts were further stratified by ESR1 mutation status, prior fulvestrant exposure, and presence of visceral disease.

The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations and in the entire cohort. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, tolerability, and quality of life.

“This was a positive study as it met both primary endpoints,” said Dr. Bardia.

The team found a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death in the elacestrant arm for all patients (hazard ratio, 0.697; P = .0018) and a 45% (HR, 0.546; P =.0005) reduction in the risk of progression or death among those with ESR1 mutations.

At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 22.32% with elacestrant versus 9.42% for those receiving the standard of care. Among the ESR1 mutation group, those rates were slightly more pronounced: 26.76% with elacestrant versus 8.19% with standard of care.

Overall survival data were not yet mature but trended in favor of elacestrant in all patients (HR, 0.751; P = .0821) as well as those with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.592; P = .0325). The final overall survival analysis is expected next year, Dr. Bardia said.

Common treatment-related adverse events with elacestrant versus standard of care included mostly grade 1 or 2 nausea (25.3% vs. 8.7%), vomiting (11% vs. 2.6%), and fatigue (11% vs. 7.9%). The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 7.2% in the elacestrant arm versus 3.1% in the standard of care group and was mainly driven by nausea. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of elacestrant or standard of care were infrequent in both arms (6.3% and 4.4%, respectively). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

Dr. Bardia added that further studies are planned and assess the efficacy of elacestrant during earlier lines of treatment and in combination with other therapies, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Weighing in on the recent findings, Carlos Arteaga, MD, who was not involved in the research, said this represents an important study evaluating a therapeutic priority.

“The data suggest that [elacestrant] may be a new option, not only as monotherapy but in combination with other therapies,” Dr. Arteaga, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of SABCS, said in an interview.

Coral Omene, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and assistant professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, both in New Brunswick, also commented on the importance of the EMERALD results.

“I would think that this is practice changing,” said Dr. Omene, who was also not involved in the research. The new oral SERD “demonstrates a significant advantage in progression-free survival over either fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.”

An oral drug could also potentially save patients from painful injections that can occasionally result in injection-site abscesses from long-term administration, she explained. “It’s also more convenient to take oral pills at home. It saves on transportation and omits waiting in treatment rooms for administrations.”

Although the overall survival data are not yet mature and the rate of adverse events was higher with elacestrant, “progression-free survival is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival and is reasonable to consider a treatment regimen based on this while awaiting mature survival data,” Dr. Omene added. “The increase in nausea and vomiting seen in oral SERD arm is likely manageable, as there were no significant differences in discontinuation in both arms of treatment.”

The study was supported by Radius Health. Dr. Bardia has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Radius Health, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, and Foundation Medicine. He has conducted contracted research or received grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

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

An updated analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial confirms the durability of combination immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, representing a “substantial development” in treatment, researchers say.

Nearly half the patients treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were alive at 6½ years. Within this group, 77% had not received further systemic treatment after coming off the study drugs.

After a minimum follow-up of 77 months, median overall survival was 72.1 months in patients on the combination, which was more than three times longer than the 19.9 months with ipilimumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.64) and twice as long as the 36.9 months with nivolumab alone (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04).

The results represent the longest median overall survival seen in a phase 3 trial of advanced melanoma and are evidence of “a substantial development in the melanoma treatment landscape versus the standard median survival of 8 months a decade ago,” researchers wrote in a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

However, lead author Jedd D. Wolchok, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that the study was not designed to compare nivolumab alone with the combination. “It wasn’t powered for that. [But] what we can say is that the highest survival was in the combination group,” Dr. Wolchok told this news organization.

Dr. Wolchok cautioned that the combination therapy is not currently standard of care. “PD-1 blockade – either nivolumab or the combination – are both excellent options for care,” he added. “I can’t tell you that one of them is the standard of care because that’s too complex of a decision.”

For example, he explained, “for a patient who only has lung metastases, a single-agent PD-1 blockade might be sufficient. But if it has spread to other organs, such as the liver or bones, which are more difficult to treat, that’s when we often reach for the combination.”

Other factors that weigh into the therapeutic decision are the patient’s performance status and their so-called clinical reserve for tolerating side effects. “The likelihood of having a high-grade side effect with the combination is more than twice that of the single agent,” Dr. Wolchok said.

Until 2011, only two therapies were approved for metastatic melanoma: Chemotherapy with dacarbazine and immunotherapy with high-dose interleukin-2, neither of which was very effective at prolonging life. But patient survival changed with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Some patients are now living for years, and as the current study shows, many have surpassed the 5-year mark and are treatment free.

The updated CheckMate 067 analysis included patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma who were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/ kg every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315).

The authors reported the 5-year overall survival rates from the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 – 52% with the combination, 44% with nivolumab alone, and 26% with ipilimumab alone.

In the updated study, overall survival at 6½ years had dropped slightly to 49%, 42%, and 23%, respectively. Patients with BRAF-mutant tumors had overall survival rates of 57%, 43%, and 25% versus 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF wild-type tumors.

Overall, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 11.5 months with the combination, 6.9 months with nivolumab alone, and 2.9 months with ipilimumab.

The new analysis also evaluated melanoma-specific survival (MSS), which removes competing causes of deaths from the long-term follow-up. The MSS was not reached in the combination group, and was 58.7 months in the nivolumab group and 21.9 months for ipilimumab, with MSS rates at 6.5 years of 56%, 48%, and 27%, respectively.

No new safety signals were detected, but there was more immune-mediated toxicity in the combination group, the researchers reported.

“The patients will continue to be followed,” said Dr. Wolchok, “And data are still being collected.”

The trial was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute for Health Research Royal Marsden–Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Wolchok and coauthors reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other drugmakers.
 

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

An updated analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial confirms the durability of combination immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, representing a “substantial development” in treatment, researchers say.

Nearly half the patients treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were alive at 6½ years. Within this group, 77% had not received further systemic treatment after coming off the study drugs.

After a minimum follow-up of 77 months, median overall survival was 72.1 months in patients on the combination, which was more than three times longer than the 19.9 months with ipilimumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.64) and twice as long as the 36.9 months with nivolumab alone (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04).

The results represent the longest median overall survival seen in a phase 3 trial of advanced melanoma and are evidence of “a substantial development in the melanoma treatment landscape versus the standard median survival of 8 months a decade ago,” researchers wrote in a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

However, lead author Jedd D. Wolchok, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that the study was not designed to compare nivolumab alone with the combination. “It wasn’t powered for that. [But] what we can say is that the highest survival was in the combination group,” Dr. Wolchok told this news organization.

Dr. Wolchok cautioned that the combination therapy is not currently standard of care. “PD-1 blockade – either nivolumab or the combination – are both excellent options for care,” he added. “I can’t tell you that one of them is the standard of care because that’s too complex of a decision.”

For example, he explained, “for a patient who only has lung metastases, a single-agent PD-1 blockade might be sufficient. But if it has spread to other organs, such as the liver or bones, which are more difficult to treat, that’s when we often reach for the combination.”

Other factors that weigh into the therapeutic decision are the patient’s performance status and their so-called clinical reserve for tolerating side effects. “The likelihood of having a high-grade side effect with the combination is more than twice that of the single agent,” Dr. Wolchok said.

Until 2011, only two therapies were approved for metastatic melanoma: Chemotherapy with dacarbazine and immunotherapy with high-dose interleukin-2, neither of which was very effective at prolonging life. But patient survival changed with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Some patients are now living for years, and as the current study shows, many have surpassed the 5-year mark and are treatment free.

The updated CheckMate 067 analysis included patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma who were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/ kg every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315).

The authors reported the 5-year overall survival rates from the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 – 52% with the combination, 44% with nivolumab alone, and 26% with ipilimumab alone.

In the updated study, overall survival at 6½ years had dropped slightly to 49%, 42%, and 23%, respectively. Patients with BRAF-mutant tumors had overall survival rates of 57%, 43%, and 25% versus 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF wild-type tumors.

Overall, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 11.5 months with the combination, 6.9 months with nivolumab alone, and 2.9 months with ipilimumab.

The new analysis also evaluated melanoma-specific survival (MSS), which removes competing causes of deaths from the long-term follow-up. The MSS was not reached in the combination group, and was 58.7 months in the nivolumab group and 21.9 months for ipilimumab, with MSS rates at 6.5 years of 56%, 48%, and 27%, respectively.

No new safety signals were detected, but there was more immune-mediated toxicity in the combination group, the researchers reported.

“The patients will continue to be followed,” said Dr. Wolchok, “And data are still being collected.”

The trial was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute for Health Research Royal Marsden–Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Wolchok and coauthors reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other drugmakers.
 

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

An updated analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial confirms the durability of combination immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, representing a “substantial development” in treatment, researchers say.

Nearly half the patients treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were alive at 6½ years. Within this group, 77% had not received further systemic treatment after coming off the study drugs.

After a minimum follow-up of 77 months, median overall survival was 72.1 months in patients on the combination, which was more than three times longer than the 19.9 months with ipilimumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.64) and twice as long as the 36.9 months with nivolumab alone (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04).

The results represent the longest median overall survival seen in a phase 3 trial of advanced melanoma and are evidence of “a substantial development in the melanoma treatment landscape versus the standard median survival of 8 months a decade ago,” researchers wrote in a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

However, lead author Jedd D. Wolchok, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that the study was not designed to compare nivolumab alone with the combination. “It wasn’t powered for that. [But] what we can say is that the highest survival was in the combination group,” Dr. Wolchok told this news organization.

Dr. Wolchok cautioned that the combination therapy is not currently standard of care. “PD-1 blockade – either nivolumab or the combination – are both excellent options for care,” he added. “I can’t tell you that one of them is the standard of care because that’s too complex of a decision.”

For example, he explained, “for a patient who only has lung metastases, a single-agent PD-1 blockade might be sufficient. But if it has spread to other organs, such as the liver or bones, which are more difficult to treat, that’s when we often reach for the combination.”

Other factors that weigh into the therapeutic decision are the patient’s performance status and their so-called clinical reserve for tolerating side effects. “The likelihood of having a high-grade side effect with the combination is more than twice that of the single agent,” Dr. Wolchok said.

Until 2011, only two therapies were approved for metastatic melanoma: Chemotherapy with dacarbazine and immunotherapy with high-dose interleukin-2, neither of which was very effective at prolonging life. But patient survival changed with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Some patients are now living for years, and as the current study shows, many have surpassed the 5-year mark and are treatment free.

The updated CheckMate 067 analysis included patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma who were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/ kg every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315).

The authors reported the 5-year overall survival rates from the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 – 52% with the combination, 44% with nivolumab alone, and 26% with ipilimumab alone.

In the updated study, overall survival at 6½ years had dropped slightly to 49%, 42%, and 23%, respectively. Patients with BRAF-mutant tumors had overall survival rates of 57%, 43%, and 25% versus 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF wild-type tumors.

Overall, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 11.5 months with the combination, 6.9 months with nivolumab alone, and 2.9 months with ipilimumab.

The new analysis also evaluated melanoma-specific survival (MSS), which removes competing causes of deaths from the long-term follow-up. The MSS was not reached in the combination group, and was 58.7 months in the nivolumab group and 21.9 months for ipilimumab, with MSS rates at 6.5 years of 56%, 48%, and 27%, respectively.

No new safety signals were detected, but there was more immune-mediated toxicity in the combination group, the researchers reported.

“The patients will continue to be followed,” said Dr. Wolchok, “And data are still being collected.”

The trial was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute for Health Research Royal Marsden–Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Wolchok and coauthors reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other drugmakers.
 

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

A new survey of U.S. patients with breast cancer found that 42% were using cannabis, primarily to relieve side effects associated with treatment, such as pain, anxiety, nausea, and insomnia.

Most (75%) of the patients who reported using cannabis said it was extremely helpful or very helpful in alleviating symptoms.

The authors warn of potential safety concerns with cannabis, especially with the use of unregulated products.

In addition, the survey found that physicians were not highly regarded as a source of information about cannabis use. Only 39% of patients said that they discussed cannabis with their physicians; 28% reported feeling uncomfortable when broaching the topic. Only 4% indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of information about cannabis.

The survey involved 612 patients with breast cancer. The results were published online Oct. 12 in Cancer.

“Our study highlights an important opportunity for providers to initiate informed conversations about medical cannabis with their patients, as the evidence shows that many are using medical cannabis without our knowledge or guidance,” said lead author Marisa Weiss, MD, of Breastcancer.org and the Lankenau Medical Center, near Philadelphia. “Not knowing whether or not our cancer patients are using cannabis is a major blind spot in our ability to provide optimal care,” she said.

Cannabis in one form or another has been legalized in many states across America, and even in states where it hasn’t been legalized, people are using it.

“Even though many states have relaxed their laws on cannabis, it remains a Schedule I drug on the federal level and is essentially still considered illegal,” commented Donald I. Abrams, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and an integrative oncologist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine. “This is why many physicians are uncomfortable discussing it with patients,” he said.

“Cannabis use isn’t taught in medical school, and until that changes, I don’t know how physicians are going to be advisers for this,” said Dr. Abrams, who was approached by this news organization for comment.

This “is a really nice study in that it looks at a large group of breast cancer patients from the community ... It’s not from a single institution [such as this previous study] and so a more representative mix,” Dr. Abrams said.

However, he also commented that the article had a “scent of ‘reefer madness’” about it, given its emphasis on potential harms and safety concerns.

“It’s interesting how alcohol is considered mainstream but cannabis has been demonized,” he said. “Especially for women with breast cancer, it’s so clear that alcohol is related to the development of postmenopausal breast cancer. As a recreational intervention, cannabis in my mind appears to be much safer for women for relaxation.”

“The one thing I worry about are patients who take highly concentrated CBD [cannabidiol] oil, as it can block the metabolism of prescription drugs and allow them to build up in the blood,” Dr. Abrams said. “I advise people against using these products.”
 

Cannabis to relieve symptoms

Previous studies have noted widespread use of cannabis among patients with cancer. For example, a large study from Israel that included nearly 3,000 participants found that cannabis use improved a variety of cancer-related symptoms, including nausea and vomiting, sleep disorders, pain, anxiety, and depression. Among those with cancer who survived to 6 months and who finished the study protocol, 60% achieved “treatment success.” Of note, at 6 months, 36% of patients had stopped taking opioids, and for 9.9%, the dose of opioids had decreased.

In the current study, dubbed the Coala-T-Cannabis study, the investigators approached U.S. members of the Breastcancer.org and Healthline.com communities who self-reported that they had been diagnosed with breast cancer within the past 5 years; 612 surveys were completed.

Half of all respondents said they had looked for information on medical cannabis, but most were unsatisfied with the information that they had received. Only 6% were extremely satisfied; 25% were very satisfied with the information.

Most patients (39%) did not discuss cannabis use with their physicians. Of those who did, 28% reported feeling uncomfortable discussing the topic. Only 4% of survey respondents indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of cannabis information.

Regarding which source of information was most helpful, 22% said websites, 18% said family members or friends, 12% said staffers and pharmacists in dispensaries, and 7% said other patients with breast cancer.

Forty-two percent of the survey respondents said they used cannabis for medical purposes and for relief of symptoms, which included pain (78%), insomnia (70%), anxiety (57%), stress (51%), and nausea/vomiting (46%).

In addition, 49% believed that medical cannabis could be used to treat the cancer itself.

A fair number were also using cannabis for recreational purposes. Of those who used cannabis, only 23% reported that they used it for medical purposes only.

Participants used cannabis in a variety of forms. The most popular form of consumption was as edibles (70%), followed by liquids/tinctures (65%), smoking (51%), topicals (46%), and vape pens (45%). Participants reported using an average of 3.7 different products.
 

Safety concerns?

The authors caution about the use of cannabis while receiving anticancer therapies because such use “raises important efficacy and safety concerns.”

“Many chemotherapy agents as well as cannabinoids are metabolized in the liver’s p450 cytochrome system,” Dr. Weiss and colleagues note, and the mechanism by which cannabinoids interact with particular CYP450 isoenzymes “has the potential to alter the metabolism of other medications and lead to adverse side effects.”

They also question the safety of some of the cannabis products that are being used. Participants reported receiving cannabis from a variety of sources, which included state-regulated dispensaries, “dealers,” and family/friends.

Three-quarters of respondents believed that cannabis was better than “chemicals” and that the benefits outweighed the risks. But many of the products used are unregulated, the authors point out.

“Providers should communicate clearly about the health and safety concerns associated with certain cannabis products and methods of delivery,” they conclude. “Without these measures, patients may make these decisions without qualified medical guidance, obtain poor-quality cannabis products, and consume them through potentially hazardous delivery methods during various types of cancer therapies.”

The study was supported by research grants from Ananda Health/Ecofibre and the Dr. Philip Reeves Legacy Fund. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article. Dr. Abrams owns stock in Cannformatics and Lumen; he has received honorarium from Clever Leaves and Maui Grown Therapies and speaker honorarium from GW Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new survey of U.S. patients with breast cancer found that 42% were using cannabis, primarily to relieve side effects associated with treatment, such as pain, anxiety, nausea, and insomnia.

Most (75%) of the patients who reported using cannabis said it was extremely helpful or very helpful in alleviating symptoms.

The authors warn of potential safety concerns with cannabis, especially with the use of unregulated products.

In addition, the survey found that physicians were not highly regarded as a source of information about cannabis use. Only 39% of patients said that they discussed cannabis with their physicians; 28% reported feeling uncomfortable when broaching the topic. Only 4% indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of information about cannabis.

The survey involved 612 patients with breast cancer. The results were published online Oct. 12 in Cancer.

“Our study highlights an important opportunity for providers to initiate informed conversations about medical cannabis with their patients, as the evidence shows that many are using medical cannabis without our knowledge or guidance,” said lead author Marisa Weiss, MD, of Breastcancer.org and the Lankenau Medical Center, near Philadelphia. “Not knowing whether or not our cancer patients are using cannabis is a major blind spot in our ability to provide optimal care,” she said.

Cannabis in one form or another has been legalized in many states across America, and even in states where it hasn’t been legalized, people are using it.

“Even though many states have relaxed their laws on cannabis, it remains a Schedule I drug on the federal level and is essentially still considered illegal,” commented Donald I. Abrams, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and an integrative oncologist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine. “This is why many physicians are uncomfortable discussing it with patients,” he said.

“Cannabis use isn’t taught in medical school, and until that changes, I don’t know how physicians are going to be advisers for this,” said Dr. Abrams, who was approached by this news organization for comment.

This “is a really nice study in that it looks at a large group of breast cancer patients from the community ... It’s not from a single institution [such as this previous study] and so a more representative mix,” Dr. Abrams said.

However, he also commented that the article had a “scent of ‘reefer madness’” about it, given its emphasis on potential harms and safety concerns.

“It’s interesting how alcohol is considered mainstream but cannabis has been demonized,” he said. “Especially for women with breast cancer, it’s so clear that alcohol is related to the development of postmenopausal breast cancer. As a recreational intervention, cannabis in my mind appears to be much safer for women for relaxation.”

“The one thing I worry about are patients who take highly concentrated CBD [cannabidiol] oil, as it can block the metabolism of prescription drugs and allow them to build up in the blood,” Dr. Abrams said. “I advise people against using these products.”
 

Cannabis to relieve symptoms

Previous studies have noted widespread use of cannabis among patients with cancer. For example, a large study from Israel that included nearly 3,000 participants found that cannabis use improved a variety of cancer-related symptoms, including nausea and vomiting, sleep disorders, pain, anxiety, and depression. Among those with cancer who survived to 6 months and who finished the study protocol, 60% achieved “treatment success.” Of note, at 6 months, 36% of patients had stopped taking opioids, and for 9.9%, the dose of opioids had decreased.

In the current study, dubbed the Coala-T-Cannabis study, the investigators approached U.S. members of the Breastcancer.org and Healthline.com communities who self-reported that they had been diagnosed with breast cancer within the past 5 years; 612 surveys were completed.

Half of all respondents said they had looked for information on medical cannabis, but most were unsatisfied with the information that they had received. Only 6% were extremely satisfied; 25% were very satisfied with the information.

Most patients (39%) did not discuss cannabis use with their physicians. Of those who did, 28% reported feeling uncomfortable discussing the topic. Only 4% of survey respondents indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of cannabis information.

Regarding which source of information was most helpful, 22% said websites, 18% said family members or friends, 12% said staffers and pharmacists in dispensaries, and 7% said other patients with breast cancer.

Forty-two percent of the survey respondents said they used cannabis for medical purposes and for relief of symptoms, which included pain (78%), insomnia (70%), anxiety (57%), stress (51%), and nausea/vomiting (46%).

In addition, 49% believed that medical cannabis could be used to treat the cancer itself.

A fair number were also using cannabis for recreational purposes. Of those who used cannabis, only 23% reported that they used it for medical purposes only.

Participants used cannabis in a variety of forms. The most popular form of consumption was as edibles (70%), followed by liquids/tinctures (65%), smoking (51%), topicals (46%), and vape pens (45%). Participants reported using an average of 3.7 different products.
 

Safety concerns?

The authors caution about the use of cannabis while receiving anticancer therapies because such use “raises important efficacy and safety concerns.”

“Many chemotherapy agents as well as cannabinoids are metabolized in the liver’s p450 cytochrome system,” Dr. Weiss and colleagues note, and the mechanism by which cannabinoids interact with particular CYP450 isoenzymes “has the potential to alter the metabolism of other medications and lead to adverse side effects.”

They also question the safety of some of the cannabis products that are being used. Participants reported receiving cannabis from a variety of sources, which included state-regulated dispensaries, “dealers,” and family/friends.

Three-quarters of respondents believed that cannabis was better than “chemicals” and that the benefits outweighed the risks. But many of the products used are unregulated, the authors point out.

“Providers should communicate clearly about the health and safety concerns associated with certain cannabis products and methods of delivery,” they conclude. “Without these measures, patients may make these decisions without qualified medical guidance, obtain poor-quality cannabis products, and consume them through potentially hazardous delivery methods during various types of cancer therapies.”

The study was supported by research grants from Ananda Health/Ecofibre and the Dr. Philip Reeves Legacy Fund. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article. Dr. Abrams owns stock in Cannformatics and Lumen; he has received honorarium from Clever Leaves and Maui Grown Therapies and speaker honorarium from GW Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new survey of U.S. patients with breast cancer found that 42% were using cannabis, primarily to relieve side effects associated with treatment, such as pain, anxiety, nausea, and insomnia.

Most (75%) of the patients who reported using cannabis said it was extremely helpful or very helpful in alleviating symptoms.

The authors warn of potential safety concerns with cannabis, especially with the use of unregulated products.

In addition, the survey found that physicians were not highly regarded as a source of information about cannabis use. Only 39% of patients said that they discussed cannabis with their physicians; 28% reported feeling uncomfortable when broaching the topic. Only 4% indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of information about cannabis.

The survey involved 612 patients with breast cancer. The results were published online Oct. 12 in Cancer.

“Our study highlights an important opportunity for providers to initiate informed conversations about medical cannabis with their patients, as the evidence shows that many are using medical cannabis without our knowledge or guidance,” said lead author Marisa Weiss, MD, of Breastcancer.org and the Lankenau Medical Center, near Philadelphia. “Not knowing whether or not our cancer patients are using cannabis is a major blind spot in our ability to provide optimal care,” she said.

Cannabis in one form or another has been legalized in many states across America, and even in states where it hasn’t been legalized, people are using it.

“Even though many states have relaxed their laws on cannabis, it remains a Schedule I drug on the federal level and is essentially still considered illegal,” commented Donald I. Abrams, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and an integrative oncologist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine. “This is why many physicians are uncomfortable discussing it with patients,” he said.

“Cannabis use isn’t taught in medical school, and until that changes, I don’t know how physicians are going to be advisers for this,” said Dr. Abrams, who was approached by this news organization for comment.

This “is a really nice study in that it looks at a large group of breast cancer patients from the community ... It’s not from a single institution [such as this previous study] and so a more representative mix,” Dr. Abrams said.

However, he also commented that the article had a “scent of ‘reefer madness’” about it, given its emphasis on potential harms and safety concerns.

“It’s interesting how alcohol is considered mainstream but cannabis has been demonized,” he said. “Especially for women with breast cancer, it’s so clear that alcohol is related to the development of postmenopausal breast cancer. As a recreational intervention, cannabis in my mind appears to be much safer for women for relaxation.”

“The one thing I worry about are patients who take highly concentrated CBD [cannabidiol] oil, as it can block the metabolism of prescription drugs and allow them to build up in the blood,” Dr. Abrams said. “I advise people against using these products.”
 

Cannabis to relieve symptoms

Previous studies have noted widespread use of cannabis among patients with cancer. For example, a large study from Israel that included nearly 3,000 participants found that cannabis use improved a variety of cancer-related symptoms, including nausea and vomiting, sleep disorders, pain, anxiety, and depression. Among those with cancer who survived to 6 months and who finished the study protocol, 60% achieved “treatment success.” Of note, at 6 months, 36% of patients had stopped taking opioids, and for 9.9%, the dose of opioids had decreased.

In the current study, dubbed the Coala-T-Cannabis study, the investigators approached U.S. members of the Breastcancer.org and Healthline.com communities who self-reported that they had been diagnosed with breast cancer within the past 5 years; 612 surveys were completed.

Half of all respondents said they had looked for information on medical cannabis, but most were unsatisfied with the information that they had received. Only 6% were extremely satisfied; 25% were very satisfied with the information.

Most patients (39%) did not discuss cannabis use with their physicians. Of those who did, 28% reported feeling uncomfortable discussing the topic. Only 4% of survey respondents indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of cannabis information.

Regarding which source of information was most helpful, 22% said websites, 18% said family members or friends, 12% said staffers and pharmacists in dispensaries, and 7% said other patients with breast cancer.

Forty-two percent of the survey respondents said they used cannabis for medical purposes and for relief of symptoms, which included pain (78%), insomnia (70%), anxiety (57%), stress (51%), and nausea/vomiting (46%).

In addition, 49% believed that medical cannabis could be used to treat the cancer itself.

A fair number were also using cannabis for recreational purposes. Of those who used cannabis, only 23% reported that they used it for medical purposes only.

Participants used cannabis in a variety of forms. The most popular form of consumption was as edibles (70%), followed by liquids/tinctures (65%), smoking (51%), topicals (46%), and vape pens (45%). Participants reported using an average of 3.7 different products.
 

Safety concerns?

The authors caution about the use of cannabis while receiving anticancer therapies because such use “raises important efficacy and safety concerns.”

“Many chemotherapy agents as well as cannabinoids are metabolized in the liver’s p450 cytochrome system,” Dr. Weiss and colleagues note, and the mechanism by which cannabinoids interact with particular CYP450 isoenzymes “has the potential to alter the metabolism of other medications and lead to adverse side effects.”

They also question the safety of some of the cannabis products that are being used. Participants reported receiving cannabis from a variety of sources, which included state-regulated dispensaries, “dealers,” and family/friends.

Three-quarters of respondents believed that cannabis was better than “chemicals” and that the benefits outweighed the risks. But many of the products used are unregulated, the authors point out.

“Providers should communicate clearly about the health and safety concerns associated with certain cannabis products and methods of delivery,” they conclude. “Without these measures, patients may make these decisions without qualified medical guidance, obtain poor-quality cannabis products, and consume them through potentially hazardous delivery methods during various types of cancer therapies.”

The study was supported by research grants from Ananda Health/Ecofibre and the Dr. Philip Reeves Legacy Fund. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article. Dr. Abrams owns stock in Cannformatics and Lumen; he has received honorarium from Clever Leaves and Maui Grown Therapies and speaker honorarium from GW Pharmaceuticals.

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

System-level changes to the way cancer care is delivered can help eliminate survival disparities between Black and White patients.

When barriers to completing radiation therapy were identified and addressed in a cohort of patients with early-stage lung and breast cancer, 5-year survival rates improved for all patients and closed the racial disparity gap, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

The findings come from the ACCURE clinical trial. This is the first prospective study designed to erase gaps in cancer treatment completion and survival among Black and White patient populations, explained lead author Matthew A. Manning, MD, a radiation oncologist and chief of oncology at Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C.

“Thousands of studies have looked at racial disparities in health care, but until recently, very few studies have implemented interventions to eliminate those disparities,” he said.

“This study shows that the implementation of ‘systems-change’ can eliminate racial disparities in cancer survival while improving survival for all,” he added.

“These results add to a growing body of evidence that health care disparities in cancer outcomes are eliminated or minimized by providing supportive, timely, and guideline-directed care,” said Lannis Hall, MD, MPH, director of radiation oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, and associate professor of radiation oncology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was approached for comment

“This research supports that access to care and timely treatment completion is critical to eliminating health care disparities,” she told this news organization. The system-based intervention in this trial was designed to reduce treatment delays and provide a supportive matrix for patients confronting real-world difficulties like transportation issues, childcare complications, and work absence, she explained.
 

Eliminating racial disparities

Previous findings from the ACCURE trial showed that it eliminated Black-White disparities in treatment completion rates, which was the study’s primary endpoint (Cancer Med. 2019;8:1095-1102). “It also improved treatment for all patients,” said Dr. Manning. “The current study is a follow-up on the survival of eligible patients treated during the ACCURE enrollment as compared to historical data.”

ACCURE was a multi-institutional trial designed to test a community-created intervention to reduce racial disparities. The intervention involved multiple changes to the way patients were supported while receiving cancer treatment and had four components: 

• an electronic health record with automatic alerts to flag missed appointments or unmet milestones in expected care 
• a nurse navigator trained in race-specific barriers to help patients overcome obstacles to care when alerts are flagged
• a physician champion to engage health care teams with race-related feedback on treatment completion
• regular health equity education training sessions for staff

The cohort was comprised of 1,413 patients with lung and breast cancer (stage 0-II) who were diagnosed from 2013-2015, and survival was compared to historical cases – 2,016 patients who had been treated from 2007-2011.

The results showed a significant improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with breast and lung cancer over time, and the racial gap in survival was reduced. 

The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer increased from 91% for White patients and 89% in Black patients in historical cases, to 94% for both during the study period.  

For patients with lung cancer, the 5-year survival rate improved from 43% in White patients and 37% in Black patients to 56% and 54%, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery had 5-year survival rates of 78.5% for White and 70.1% for Black patients, whereas for those who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) the rates were 41.9% and 50% respectively.

“We’ve shown it’s possible to eliminate disparities in cancer treatment completion and that this change has the potential to close cancer survival gaps downstream,” said Dr. Manning. “But we think the application can be much broader.” 

The ACCURE study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Manning and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

System-level changes to the way cancer care is delivered can help eliminate survival disparities between Black and White patients.

When barriers to completing radiation therapy were identified and addressed in a cohort of patients with early-stage lung and breast cancer, 5-year survival rates improved for all patients and closed the racial disparity gap, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

The findings come from the ACCURE clinical trial. This is the first prospective study designed to erase gaps in cancer treatment completion and survival among Black and White patient populations, explained lead author Matthew A. Manning, MD, a radiation oncologist and chief of oncology at Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C.

“Thousands of studies have looked at racial disparities in health care, but until recently, very few studies have implemented interventions to eliminate those disparities,” he said.

“This study shows that the implementation of ‘systems-change’ can eliminate racial disparities in cancer survival while improving survival for all,” he added.

“These results add to a growing body of evidence that health care disparities in cancer outcomes are eliminated or minimized by providing supportive, timely, and guideline-directed care,” said Lannis Hall, MD, MPH, director of radiation oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, and associate professor of radiation oncology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was approached for comment

“This research supports that access to care and timely treatment completion is critical to eliminating health care disparities,” she told this news organization. The system-based intervention in this trial was designed to reduce treatment delays and provide a supportive matrix for patients confronting real-world difficulties like transportation issues, childcare complications, and work absence, she explained.
 

Eliminating racial disparities

Previous findings from the ACCURE trial showed that it eliminated Black-White disparities in treatment completion rates, which was the study’s primary endpoint (Cancer Med. 2019;8:1095-1102). “It also improved treatment for all patients,” said Dr. Manning. “The current study is a follow-up on the survival of eligible patients treated during the ACCURE enrollment as compared to historical data.”

ACCURE was a multi-institutional trial designed to test a community-created intervention to reduce racial disparities. The intervention involved multiple changes to the way patients were supported while receiving cancer treatment and had four components: 

• an electronic health record with automatic alerts to flag missed appointments or unmet milestones in expected care 
• a nurse navigator trained in race-specific barriers to help patients overcome obstacles to care when alerts are flagged
• a physician champion to engage health care teams with race-related feedback on treatment completion
• regular health equity education training sessions for staff

The cohort was comprised of 1,413 patients with lung and breast cancer (stage 0-II) who were diagnosed from 2013-2015, and survival was compared to historical cases – 2,016 patients who had been treated from 2007-2011.

The results showed a significant improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with breast and lung cancer over time, and the racial gap in survival was reduced. 

The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer increased from 91% for White patients and 89% in Black patients in historical cases, to 94% for both during the study period.  

For patients with lung cancer, the 5-year survival rate improved from 43% in White patients and 37% in Black patients to 56% and 54%, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery had 5-year survival rates of 78.5% for White and 70.1% for Black patients, whereas for those who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) the rates were 41.9% and 50% respectively.

“We’ve shown it’s possible to eliminate disparities in cancer treatment completion and that this change has the potential to close cancer survival gaps downstream,” said Dr. Manning. “But we think the application can be much broader.” 

The ACCURE study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Manning and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

System-level changes to the way cancer care is delivered can help eliminate survival disparities between Black and White patients.

When barriers to completing radiation therapy were identified and addressed in a cohort of patients with early-stage lung and breast cancer, 5-year survival rates improved for all patients and closed the racial disparity gap, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

The findings come from the ACCURE clinical trial. This is the first prospective study designed to erase gaps in cancer treatment completion and survival among Black and White patient populations, explained lead author Matthew A. Manning, MD, a radiation oncologist and chief of oncology at Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C.

“Thousands of studies have looked at racial disparities in health care, but until recently, very few studies have implemented interventions to eliminate those disparities,” he said.

“This study shows that the implementation of ‘systems-change’ can eliminate racial disparities in cancer survival while improving survival for all,” he added.

“These results add to a growing body of evidence that health care disparities in cancer outcomes are eliminated or minimized by providing supportive, timely, and guideline-directed care,” said Lannis Hall, MD, MPH, director of radiation oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, and associate professor of radiation oncology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was approached for comment

“This research supports that access to care and timely treatment completion is critical to eliminating health care disparities,” she told this news organization. The system-based intervention in this trial was designed to reduce treatment delays and provide a supportive matrix for patients confronting real-world difficulties like transportation issues, childcare complications, and work absence, she explained.
 

Eliminating racial disparities

Previous findings from the ACCURE trial showed that it eliminated Black-White disparities in treatment completion rates, which was the study’s primary endpoint (Cancer Med. 2019;8:1095-1102). “It also improved treatment for all patients,” said Dr. Manning. “The current study is a follow-up on the survival of eligible patients treated during the ACCURE enrollment as compared to historical data.”

ACCURE was a multi-institutional trial designed to test a community-created intervention to reduce racial disparities. The intervention involved multiple changes to the way patients were supported while receiving cancer treatment and had four components: 

• an electronic health record with automatic alerts to flag missed appointments or unmet milestones in expected care 
• a nurse navigator trained in race-specific barriers to help patients overcome obstacles to care when alerts are flagged
• a physician champion to engage health care teams with race-related feedback on treatment completion
• regular health equity education training sessions for staff

The cohort was comprised of 1,413 patients with lung and breast cancer (stage 0-II) who were diagnosed from 2013-2015, and survival was compared to historical cases – 2,016 patients who had been treated from 2007-2011.

The results showed a significant improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with breast and lung cancer over time, and the racial gap in survival was reduced. 

The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer increased from 91% for White patients and 89% in Black patients in historical cases, to 94% for both during the study period.  

For patients with lung cancer, the 5-year survival rate improved from 43% in White patients and 37% in Black patients to 56% and 54%, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery had 5-year survival rates of 78.5% for White and 70.1% for Black patients, whereas for those who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) the rates were 41.9% and 50% respectively.

“We’ve shown it’s possible to eliminate disparities in cancer treatment completion and that this change has the potential to close cancer survival gaps downstream,” said Dr. Manning. “But we think the application can be much broader.” 

The ACCURE study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Manning and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed at progressive lesions in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was beneficial and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), suggest clinical trial results presented this week.

Patients treated with SBRT had a median PFS of 44 weeks, compared with 9 weeks for those who received standard care.

However, no benefit was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer. There was no significant difference in PFS between the two groups (18 weeks with SBRT vs. 19 weeks with standard care).

“In this preplanned interim analysis, we demonstrated the benefit of SBRT to sites of oligoprogression on overall progression-free survival, which was the primary endpoint,” said lead author C. Jillian Tsai, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and director of metastatic disease radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The difference was driven by the substantial response in [this] NSCLC cohort.”

There was no benefit of SBRT seen in the breast cohort, she noted, and most breast patients developed new lesions upon further progression.

Dr. Tsai and colleagues are planning to close the trial early, after the interim analysis established the benefit of SBRT. They are now investigating why SBRT was beneficial in NSCLC but not in breast cancer.

The findings were presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

Dr. Tsai explained that the current standard of care for patients with oligoprogressive metastatic NSCLC is to switch to a different targeted therapy or chemotherapy following progression, but options may be limited. Efficacy for second-line therapy can be poor, with PFS ranging from about 4 months to 10 months for NSCLC, “and after second line, efficacy for third and fourth lines is even poorer,” she said.

Similarly, for breast cancer, PFS ranges from about 9 months to 20 months for estrogen-receptor positive patients. “But for triple negative patients, there really is no standard of care and PFS is poor,” Dr. Tsai said.
 

SBRT superior to standard of care

The authors hypothesized that there is an oligoprogressive state in metastatic cancer, in which disease control can be improved by applying local therapy to progressive lesions only.

The cohort included 102 patients with metastatic NSCLC or breast cancer who had received one or more lines of systemic therapy and had oligoprogressive lesions amenable to SBRT. There was no upper limit of nonprogressive lesions.

Oligoprogression was defined as Response Evaluation or Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors documented progression ≤5 individual lesions.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT to all progressive sites plus palliative standard of care or systemic SOC only. Systemic therapy was per physician’s discretion.

There were 58 patients with NSCLC (30 in the SBRT group) and 44 patients with breast cancer (22 in each group).

Most patients (75%) had more than one site of oligoprogression and 47% had more than 5 total metastatic lesions. About half of patients (54%) had received immunotherapy and the majority of those with NSCLC (86%) did not harbor an actionable driver mutation. About one-third (32%) of the breast cancer cohort were triple negative.

Patients were followed for a median of 45 weeks (58 weeks for living patients), by which time 78 (74%) had experienced further tumor progression and 39 (37%) had died.

Median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 31 weeks for SBRT and 11 weeks for palliative SOC (P = .002).

In multivariable analysis that stratified for factors including age, sex, lines of systemic therapy, and change of systemic therapy, the progression-free survival benefit of SBRT continued to remain substantial in the NSCLC cohort (hazard ratio: 0.38; P = .007).

Adverse events were higher in the SBRT group. Grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 23 (61%) of SBRT patients, and 15 (40%) of SOC patients (P = .13).
 

Hoped-for results, with a few caveats

Approached for comment on the new findings, Clifford Robinson, MD, professor of radiation oncology, chief of SBRT service, and director of clinical trials and informatics at Washington University, St. Louis, said the results tie in with previous findings.

There are multiple published or presented prospective randomized phase 2 and 3 trials in various disease sites that have explored the role of local therapy, including SBRT, for patients who present with oligometastatic disease.

“These studies have nearly uniformly shown improvements in progression-free and/or overall survival with the inclusion of local therapy,” he told this news organization. Dr. Robinson was not involved with the study.

He explained that relatively few patients present with oligometastatic disease. However, many patients present with more advanced disease, but after an initial course of systemic therapy, develop oligoprogression.

“There is tremendous appeal to using local therapy at the time of oligoprogression in lieu of switching systemic therapy,” said Dr. Robinson. “It allows patients to stay on systemic therapy that is otherwise effective for the remainder of their disease.”

First-line systemic therapies are the most effective and the most tolerable, he continued, and switching systemic therapy introduces the potential for more toxicity and less efficacy. Therefore, it has become increasingly popular to offer SBRT to one or a few sites of oligoprogressive disease based on the results of oligometastatic disease.

“However, there is no established prospective data to guide this practice,” he said. “This trial is the first to examine this carefully in lung and breast cancer patients, and this trial shows what we hoped to see – that use of SBRT after oligoprogression results in improved progression-free survival as compared with standard of care alone. And this was accomplished with limited toxicity.”

There are a few caveats, though, he pointed out. “Progression-free survival is defined as time to first progression or death,” he said. “Since we don’t know what the overall survival is in this abstract, it’s entirely possible that patients live for the same length of time, but just take longer to progress.”

Another caveat is that this was a planned interim analysis. “Typically, planned interim analyses occur to see if the trial should be stopped or to adjust the study based on results,” he said. “It’s unclear what the investigators will do with this information.”

“But overall, these are very exciting data and lend support to the increasingly common practice of treating oligoprogressive disease,” Dr. Robinson added. “Since most of the serious adverse events of SBRT occur later, longer follow-up is needed, although the median survival of patients may not reach that timepoint.”

“For now, practice should not be altered based on these interim results,” he added.

Dr. Tsai reported acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian and Galera and also receiving research funding from Varian. Dr. Robinson reports stock/ownership in Radialogica, acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Quantitative Radiology Solutions, research funding from Varian and Merck, and owning patents on systems for cardiac arrhythmias and ablation.

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed at progressive lesions in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was beneficial and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), suggest clinical trial results presented this week.

Patients treated with SBRT had a median PFS of 44 weeks, compared with 9 weeks for those who received standard care.

However, no benefit was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer. There was no significant difference in PFS between the two groups (18 weeks with SBRT vs. 19 weeks with standard care).

“In this preplanned interim analysis, we demonstrated the benefit of SBRT to sites of oligoprogression on overall progression-free survival, which was the primary endpoint,” said lead author C. Jillian Tsai, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and director of metastatic disease radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The difference was driven by the substantial response in [this] NSCLC cohort.”

There was no benefit of SBRT seen in the breast cohort, she noted, and most breast patients developed new lesions upon further progression.

Dr. Tsai and colleagues are planning to close the trial early, after the interim analysis established the benefit of SBRT. They are now investigating why SBRT was beneficial in NSCLC but not in breast cancer.

The findings were presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

Dr. Tsai explained that the current standard of care for patients with oligoprogressive metastatic NSCLC is to switch to a different targeted therapy or chemotherapy following progression, but options may be limited. Efficacy for second-line therapy can be poor, with PFS ranging from about 4 months to 10 months for NSCLC, “and after second line, efficacy for third and fourth lines is even poorer,” she said.

Similarly, for breast cancer, PFS ranges from about 9 months to 20 months for estrogen-receptor positive patients. “But for triple negative patients, there really is no standard of care and PFS is poor,” Dr. Tsai said.
 

SBRT superior to standard of care

The authors hypothesized that there is an oligoprogressive state in metastatic cancer, in which disease control can be improved by applying local therapy to progressive lesions only.

The cohort included 102 patients with metastatic NSCLC or breast cancer who had received one or more lines of systemic therapy and had oligoprogressive lesions amenable to SBRT. There was no upper limit of nonprogressive lesions.

Oligoprogression was defined as Response Evaluation or Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors documented progression ≤5 individual lesions.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT to all progressive sites plus palliative standard of care or systemic SOC only. Systemic therapy was per physician’s discretion.

There were 58 patients with NSCLC (30 in the SBRT group) and 44 patients with breast cancer (22 in each group).

Most patients (75%) had more than one site of oligoprogression and 47% had more than 5 total metastatic lesions. About half of patients (54%) had received immunotherapy and the majority of those with NSCLC (86%) did not harbor an actionable driver mutation. About one-third (32%) of the breast cancer cohort were triple negative.

Patients were followed for a median of 45 weeks (58 weeks for living patients), by which time 78 (74%) had experienced further tumor progression and 39 (37%) had died.

Median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 31 weeks for SBRT and 11 weeks for palliative SOC (P = .002).

In multivariable analysis that stratified for factors including age, sex, lines of systemic therapy, and change of systemic therapy, the progression-free survival benefit of SBRT continued to remain substantial in the NSCLC cohort (hazard ratio: 0.38; P = .007).

Adverse events were higher in the SBRT group. Grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 23 (61%) of SBRT patients, and 15 (40%) of SOC patients (P = .13).
 

Hoped-for results, with a few caveats

Approached for comment on the new findings, Clifford Robinson, MD, professor of radiation oncology, chief of SBRT service, and director of clinical trials and informatics at Washington University, St. Louis, said the results tie in with previous findings.

There are multiple published or presented prospective randomized phase 2 and 3 trials in various disease sites that have explored the role of local therapy, including SBRT, for patients who present with oligometastatic disease.

“These studies have nearly uniformly shown improvements in progression-free and/or overall survival with the inclusion of local therapy,” he told this news organization. Dr. Robinson was not involved with the study.

He explained that relatively few patients present with oligometastatic disease. However, many patients present with more advanced disease, but after an initial course of systemic therapy, develop oligoprogression.

“There is tremendous appeal to using local therapy at the time of oligoprogression in lieu of switching systemic therapy,” said Dr. Robinson. “It allows patients to stay on systemic therapy that is otherwise effective for the remainder of their disease.”

First-line systemic therapies are the most effective and the most tolerable, he continued, and switching systemic therapy introduces the potential for more toxicity and less efficacy. Therefore, it has become increasingly popular to offer SBRT to one or a few sites of oligoprogressive disease based on the results of oligometastatic disease.

“However, there is no established prospective data to guide this practice,” he said. “This trial is the first to examine this carefully in lung and breast cancer patients, and this trial shows what we hoped to see – that use of SBRT after oligoprogression results in improved progression-free survival as compared with standard of care alone. And this was accomplished with limited toxicity.”

There are a few caveats, though, he pointed out. “Progression-free survival is defined as time to first progression or death,” he said. “Since we don’t know what the overall survival is in this abstract, it’s entirely possible that patients live for the same length of time, but just take longer to progress.”

Another caveat is that this was a planned interim analysis. “Typically, planned interim analyses occur to see if the trial should be stopped or to adjust the study based on results,” he said. “It’s unclear what the investigators will do with this information.”

“But overall, these are very exciting data and lend support to the increasingly common practice of treating oligoprogressive disease,” Dr. Robinson added. “Since most of the serious adverse events of SBRT occur later, longer follow-up is needed, although the median survival of patients may not reach that timepoint.”

“For now, practice should not be altered based on these interim results,” he added.

Dr. Tsai reported acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian and Galera and also receiving research funding from Varian. Dr. Robinson reports stock/ownership in Radialogica, acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Quantitative Radiology Solutions, research funding from Varian and Merck, and owning patents on systems for cardiac arrhythmias and ablation.

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed at progressive lesions in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was beneficial and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), suggest clinical trial results presented this week.

Patients treated with SBRT had a median PFS of 44 weeks, compared with 9 weeks for those who received standard care.

However, no benefit was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer. There was no significant difference in PFS between the two groups (18 weeks with SBRT vs. 19 weeks with standard care).

“In this preplanned interim analysis, we demonstrated the benefit of SBRT to sites of oligoprogression on overall progression-free survival, which was the primary endpoint,” said lead author C. Jillian Tsai, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and director of metastatic disease radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The difference was driven by the substantial response in [this] NSCLC cohort.”

There was no benefit of SBRT seen in the breast cohort, she noted, and most breast patients developed new lesions upon further progression.

Dr. Tsai and colleagues are planning to close the trial early, after the interim analysis established the benefit of SBRT. They are now investigating why SBRT was beneficial in NSCLC but not in breast cancer.

The findings were presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

Dr. Tsai explained that the current standard of care for patients with oligoprogressive metastatic NSCLC is to switch to a different targeted therapy or chemotherapy following progression, but options may be limited. Efficacy for second-line therapy can be poor, with PFS ranging from about 4 months to 10 months for NSCLC, “and after second line, efficacy for third and fourth lines is even poorer,” she said.

Similarly, for breast cancer, PFS ranges from about 9 months to 20 months for estrogen-receptor positive patients. “But for triple negative patients, there really is no standard of care and PFS is poor,” Dr. Tsai said.
 

SBRT superior to standard of care

The authors hypothesized that there is an oligoprogressive state in metastatic cancer, in which disease control can be improved by applying local therapy to progressive lesions only.

The cohort included 102 patients with metastatic NSCLC or breast cancer who had received one or more lines of systemic therapy and had oligoprogressive lesions amenable to SBRT. There was no upper limit of nonprogressive lesions.

Oligoprogression was defined as Response Evaluation or Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors documented progression ≤5 individual lesions.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT to all progressive sites plus palliative standard of care or systemic SOC only. Systemic therapy was per physician’s discretion.

There were 58 patients with NSCLC (30 in the SBRT group) and 44 patients with breast cancer (22 in each group).

Most patients (75%) had more than one site of oligoprogression and 47% had more than 5 total metastatic lesions. About half of patients (54%) had received immunotherapy and the majority of those with NSCLC (86%) did not harbor an actionable driver mutation. About one-third (32%) of the breast cancer cohort were triple negative.

Patients were followed for a median of 45 weeks (58 weeks for living patients), by which time 78 (74%) had experienced further tumor progression and 39 (37%) had died.

Median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 31 weeks for SBRT and 11 weeks for palliative SOC (P = .002).

In multivariable analysis that stratified for factors including age, sex, lines of systemic therapy, and change of systemic therapy, the progression-free survival benefit of SBRT continued to remain substantial in the NSCLC cohort (hazard ratio: 0.38; P = .007).

Adverse events were higher in the SBRT group. Grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 23 (61%) of SBRT patients, and 15 (40%) of SOC patients (P = .13).
 

Hoped-for results, with a few caveats

Approached for comment on the new findings, Clifford Robinson, MD, professor of radiation oncology, chief of SBRT service, and director of clinical trials and informatics at Washington University, St. Louis, said the results tie in with previous findings.

There are multiple published or presented prospective randomized phase 2 and 3 trials in various disease sites that have explored the role of local therapy, including SBRT, for patients who present with oligometastatic disease.

“These studies have nearly uniformly shown improvements in progression-free and/or overall survival with the inclusion of local therapy,” he told this news organization. Dr. Robinson was not involved with the study.

He explained that relatively few patients present with oligometastatic disease. However, many patients present with more advanced disease, but after an initial course of systemic therapy, develop oligoprogression.

“There is tremendous appeal to using local therapy at the time of oligoprogression in lieu of switching systemic therapy,” said Dr. Robinson. “It allows patients to stay on systemic therapy that is otherwise effective for the remainder of their disease.”

First-line systemic therapies are the most effective and the most tolerable, he continued, and switching systemic therapy introduces the potential for more toxicity and less efficacy. Therefore, it has become increasingly popular to offer SBRT to one or a few sites of oligoprogressive disease based on the results of oligometastatic disease.

“However, there is no established prospective data to guide this practice,” he said. “This trial is the first to examine this carefully in lung and breast cancer patients, and this trial shows what we hoped to see – that use of SBRT after oligoprogression results in improved progression-free survival as compared with standard of care alone. And this was accomplished with limited toxicity.”

There are a few caveats, though, he pointed out. “Progression-free survival is defined as time to first progression or death,” he said. “Since we don’t know what the overall survival is in this abstract, it’s entirely possible that patients live for the same length of time, but just take longer to progress.”

Another caveat is that this was a planned interim analysis. “Typically, planned interim analyses occur to see if the trial should be stopped or to adjust the study based on results,” he said. “It’s unclear what the investigators will do with this information.”

“But overall, these are very exciting data and lend support to the increasingly common practice of treating oligoprogressive disease,” Dr. Robinson added. “Since most of the serious adverse events of SBRT occur later, longer follow-up is needed, although the median survival of patients may not reach that timepoint.”

“For now, practice should not be altered based on these interim results,” he added.

Dr. Tsai reported acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian and Galera and also receiving research funding from Varian. Dr. Robinson reports stock/ownership in Radialogica, acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Quantitative Radiology Solutions, research funding from Varian and Merck, and owning patents on systems for cardiac arrhythmias and ablation.

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