User login
Drug-coated stent bests bare metal in patients with high bleeding risk
SAN DIEGO – Positive results of the LEADERS FREE II trial in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention may pave the way for approval of a new drug-coated stent in the United States and possibly spell the end for bare-metal stents.
The stent studied – a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent – is currently marketed in Europe as BioFreedom (Biosensors International). It outperformed a very similar bare-metal stent (Gazelle, manufactured by Biosensors Interventional Technologies) in the randomized LEADERS FREE trial, which was conducted outside the United States (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 19;373[21]:2038-47). The single-arm LEADERS FREE II (NCT02843633) trial was undertaken to confirm those findings, assess their generalizability in a North American population, and obtain data to support regulatory approval of the stent in the United States, explained presenting author Mitchell W. Krucoff, MD, a professor of medicine and member in the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, N.C. All patients received drug-coated stents because it was considered unethical to randomize any to bare-metal stents after the preceding trial. As in that trial, all patients received 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
Compared with the 1,211 propensity-matched patients treated with bare metal stents in the LEADERS FREE trial, the 1,203 patients treated with drug-coated stents in the LEADERS FREE II trial had a 33% lower risk of primary safety events (a composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction) and a 37% lower risk of primary efficacy events (clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year, according to the study’s main results. Secondary outcomes were all similar or better with the drug-coated stents.
“This study demonstrates reproducibility of the randomized LEADERS FREE findings showing superior safety … and superior effectiveness … of the drug-coated stent over the bare-metal stent,” Dr. Krucoff said. “This study also, by enrolling more than half of patients in North America, supports the generalizability of the findings to patients on both sides of the Atlantic.”
Parsing the findings
When asked whether the Food and Drug Administration should approve this stent and whether he would use it for his patients, Dr. Krucoff gave a “yes, but …” reply. “The but here is, we have a lot to learn in this area. These are patients who by and large have been excluded from every pivotal drug-eluting stent study and every pivotal dual-antiplatelet study,” he elaborated. It is therefore unclear, for example, how the stent will perform as more are treated and what the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy is. Nonetheless, given that these patients make up a sizable share of the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] population and that some centers still commonly use bare-metal stents, “I think bringing this stent forward with a label for 30 days [of dual-antiplatelet therapy] in high bleeding risk patients is a yes.”
“To me, the main driving factor for an expeditious [approval] process is, if you put a conservatively critical eye to this, you could say that LEADERS FREE alerts us to a safety signal [about] our intuitive behavior practice of putting bare-metal stents in patients who we know are at high bleeding risk, so we are only going to treat them with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy. There is actually a safety signal that we are potentially doing harm, based on at least one look at this,” Dr. Krucoff added. “There is no question, I think FDA decisions are primarily driven by safety concerns. The unusual thing here is, it’s not a safety concern as a defect in the device, it’s a safety concern relative to our current practice.”
Trial details
On average, the patients enrolled in LEADERS FREE II were generally similar to counterparts enrolled in LEADERS FREE and had an average of 1.74 factors putting them at high risk for bleeding, according to Dr. Krucoff. Of note, it was an all-comers trial in that there was no restriction on coronary anatomy, lesion complexity, or clinical presentation.
Results reported at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, showed that the rate of the primary safety endpoint – the composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year – was 8.6% with the drug-coated stent and 12.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.7% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P for noninferiority less than .0001; P for superiority = .0025).
Findings were significant for each component individually and were generally consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Krucoff said. Secondary safety endpoints showed “no sign of a safety signal or concern with the drug-coated stent platform with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy.”
In an additional analysis, the unadjusted rates of the primary safety endpoint were was 8.6% and 9.0% with the drug-coated stent in the LEADERS FREE II and the LEADERS FREE populations, respectively, compared with 12.4% with the bare-metal stent.
The rate of the primary efficacy endpoint – clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year – was 6.1% with the drug-coated stent and 9.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.2% (hazard ratio, 0.63; P for superiority = .0111). Findings again were consistently in favor of the drug-coated stent across most patient subgroups, with the exception of patients having renal failure at the time of admission. Secondary efficacy endpoints all significantly favored that stent as well.
The 1-year rates of bleeding overall and by severity were statistically indistinguishable, Dr. Krucoff reported. The rate of severe bleeding – Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 – was 7.0% with the drug-coated stent and 7.3% with the bare metal stent.
Dr. Krucoff disclosed that he has various affiliations and financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Terumo. The trial was sponsored by Biosensors.
SAN DIEGO – Positive results of the LEADERS FREE II trial in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention may pave the way for approval of a new drug-coated stent in the United States and possibly spell the end for bare-metal stents.
The stent studied – a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent – is currently marketed in Europe as BioFreedom (Biosensors International). It outperformed a very similar bare-metal stent (Gazelle, manufactured by Biosensors Interventional Technologies) in the randomized LEADERS FREE trial, which was conducted outside the United States (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 19;373[21]:2038-47). The single-arm LEADERS FREE II (NCT02843633) trial was undertaken to confirm those findings, assess their generalizability in a North American population, and obtain data to support regulatory approval of the stent in the United States, explained presenting author Mitchell W. Krucoff, MD, a professor of medicine and member in the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, N.C. All patients received drug-coated stents because it was considered unethical to randomize any to bare-metal stents after the preceding trial. As in that trial, all patients received 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
Compared with the 1,211 propensity-matched patients treated with bare metal stents in the LEADERS FREE trial, the 1,203 patients treated with drug-coated stents in the LEADERS FREE II trial had a 33% lower risk of primary safety events (a composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction) and a 37% lower risk of primary efficacy events (clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year, according to the study’s main results. Secondary outcomes were all similar or better with the drug-coated stents.
“This study demonstrates reproducibility of the randomized LEADERS FREE findings showing superior safety … and superior effectiveness … of the drug-coated stent over the bare-metal stent,” Dr. Krucoff said. “This study also, by enrolling more than half of patients in North America, supports the generalizability of the findings to patients on both sides of the Atlantic.”
Parsing the findings
When asked whether the Food and Drug Administration should approve this stent and whether he would use it for his patients, Dr. Krucoff gave a “yes, but …” reply. “The but here is, we have a lot to learn in this area. These are patients who by and large have been excluded from every pivotal drug-eluting stent study and every pivotal dual-antiplatelet study,” he elaborated. It is therefore unclear, for example, how the stent will perform as more are treated and what the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy is. Nonetheless, given that these patients make up a sizable share of the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] population and that some centers still commonly use bare-metal stents, “I think bringing this stent forward with a label for 30 days [of dual-antiplatelet therapy] in high bleeding risk patients is a yes.”
“To me, the main driving factor for an expeditious [approval] process is, if you put a conservatively critical eye to this, you could say that LEADERS FREE alerts us to a safety signal [about] our intuitive behavior practice of putting bare-metal stents in patients who we know are at high bleeding risk, so we are only going to treat them with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy. There is actually a safety signal that we are potentially doing harm, based on at least one look at this,” Dr. Krucoff added. “There is no question, I think FDA decisions are primarily driven by safety concerns. The unusual thing here is, it’s not a safety concern as a defect in the device, it’s a safety concern relative to our current practice.”
Trial details
On average, the patients enrolled in LEADERS FREE II were generally similar to counterparts enrolled in LEADERS FREE and had an average of 1.74 factors putting them at high risk for bleeding, according to Dr. Krucoff. Of note, it was an all-comers trial in that there was no restriction on coronary anatomy, lesion complexity, or clinical presentation.
Results reported at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, showed that the rate of the primary safety endpoint – the composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year – was 8.6% with the drug-coated stent and 12.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.7% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P for noninferiority less than .0001; P for superiority = .0025).
Findings were significant for each component individually and were generally consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Krucoff said. Secondary safety endpoints showed “no sign of a safety signal or concern with the drug-coated stent platform with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy.”
In an additional analysis, the unadjusted rates of the primary safety endpoint were was 8.6% and 9.0% with the drug-coated stent in the LEADERS FREE II and the LEADERS FREE populations, respectively, compared with 12.4% with the bare-metal stent.
The rate of the primary efficacy endpoint – clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year – was 6.1% with the drug-coated stent and 9.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.2% (hazard ratio, 0.63; P for superiority = .0111). Findings again were consistently in favor of the drug-coated stent across most patient subgroups, with the exception of patients having renal failure at the time of admission. Secondary efficacy endpoints all significantly favored that stent as well.
The 1-year rates of bleeding overall and by severity were statistically indistinguishable, Dr. Krucoff reported. The rate of severe bleeding – Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 – was 7.0% with the drug-coated stent and 7.3% with the bare metal stent.
Dr. Krucoff disclosed that he has various affiliations and financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Terumo. The trial was sponsored by Biosensors.
SAN DIEGO – Positive results of the LEADERS FREE II trial in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention may pave the way for approval of a new drug-coated stent in the United States and possibly spell the end for bare-metal stents.
The stent studied – a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent – is currently marketed in Europe as BioFreedom (Biosensors International). It outperformed a very similar bare-metal stent (Gazelle, manufactured by Biosensors Interventional Technologies) in the randomized LEADERS FREE trial, which was conducted outside the United States (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 19;373[21]:2038-47). The single-arm LEADERS FREE II (NCT02843633) trial was undertaken to confirm those findings, assess their generalizability in a North American population, and obtain data to support regulatory approval of the stent in the United States, explained presenting author Mitchell W. Krucoff, MD, a professor of medicine and member in the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, N.C. All patients received drug-coated stents because it was considered unethical to randomize any to bare-metal stents after the preceding trial. As in that trial, all patients received 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
Compared with the 1,211 propensity-matched patients treated with bare metal stents in the LEADERS FREE trial, the 1,203 patients treated with drug-coated stents in the LEADERS FREE II trial had a 33% lower risk of primary safety events (a composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction) and a 37% lower risk of primary efficacy events (clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year, according to the study’s main results. Secondary outcomes were all similar or better with the drug-coated stents.
“This study demonstrates reproducibility of the randomized LEADERS FREE findings showing superior safety … and superior effectiveness … of the drug-coated stent over the bare-metal stent,” Dr. Krucoff said. “This study also, by enrolling more than half of patients in North America, supports the generalizability of the findings to patients on both sides of the Atlantic.”
Parsing the findings
When asked whether the Food and Drug Administration should approve this stent and whether he would use it for his patients, Dr. Krucoff gave a “yes, but …” reply. “The but here is, we have a lot to learn in this area. These are patients who by and large have been excluded from every pivotal drug-eluting stent study and every pivotal dual-antiplatelet study,” he elaborated. It is therefore unclear, for example, how the stent will perform as more are treated and what the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy is. Nonetheless, given that these patients make up a sizable share of the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] population and that some centers still commonly use bare-metal stents, “I think bringing this stent forward with a label for 30 days [of dual-antiplatelet therapy] in high bleeding risk patients is a yes.”
“To me, the main driving factor for an expeditious [approval] process is, if you put a conservatively critical eye to this, you could say that LEADERS FREE alerts us to a safety signal [about] our intuitive behavior practice of putting bare-metal stents in patients who we know are at high bleeding risk, so we are only going to treat them with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy. There is actually a safety signal that we are potentially doing harm, based on at least one look at this,” Dr. Krucoff added. “There is no question, I think FDA decisions are primarily driven by safety concerns. The unusual thing here is, it’s not a safety concern as a defect in the device, it’s a safety concern relative to our current practice.”
Trial details
On average, the patients enrolled in LEADERS FREE II were generally similar to counterparts enrolled in LEADERS FREE and had an average of 1.74 factors putting them at high risk for bleeding, according to Dr. Krucoff. Of note, it was an all-comers trial in that there was no restriction on coronary anatomy, lesion complexity, or clinical presentation.
Results reported at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, showed that the rate of the primary safety endpoint – the composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year – was 8.6% with the drug-coated stent and 12.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.7% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P for noninferiority less than .0001; P for superiority = .0025).
Findings were significant for each component individually and were generally consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Krucoff said. Secondary safety endpoints showed “no sign of a safety signal or concern with the drug-coated stent platform with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy.”
In an additional analysis, the unadjusted rates of the primary safety endpoint were was 8.6% and 9.0% with the drug-coated stent in the LEADERS FREE II and the LEADERS FREE populations, respectively, compared with 12.4% with the bare-metal stent.
The rate of the primary efficacy endpoint – clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year – was 6.1% with the drug-coated stent and 9.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.2% (hazard ratio, 0.63; P for superiority = .0111). Findings again were consistently in favor of the drug-coated stent across most patient subgroups, with the exception of patients having renal failure at the time of admission. Secondary efficacy endpoints all significantly favored that stent as well.
The 1-year rates of bleeding overall and by severity were statistically indistinguishable, Dr. Krucoff reported. The rate of severe bleeding – Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 – was 7.0% with the drug-coated stent and 7.3% with the bare metal stent.
Dr. Krucoff disclosed that he has various affiliations and financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Terumo. The trial was sponsored by Biosensors.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2018
Key clinical point: The polymer-free umirolimus (Biolimus A9)–coated stent is superior to the bare-metal stent in patients at high bleeding risk when used with a month of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
Major finding: The drug-coated stent reduced 1-year risks of the composite of cardiac death and MI by 33% and clinically driven target lesion revascularization by 37% when compared with matched controls.
Study details: A single-arm trial of 1,203 patients at high bleeding risk undergoing PCI who were given drug-coated stents with 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy who were compared with 1,211 propensity-matched historical control patients given bare-metal stents (LEADERS FREE II trial).
Disclosures: Dr. Krucoff has various affiliations/financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Terumo. The trial was sponsored by Biosensors.
Study sheds new light on prognostic factors in PRCC
Although the two major subtypes of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) differ on a variety of measures of aggressiveness, subtype is not independently prognostic, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted by the German Network of Kidney Cancer.
Investigators led by Iris Polifka, an intern at the Institute of Pathology at the University Hospital Erlangen (Germany), characterized 376 renal tumors initially diagnosed as PRCC. They reviewed histologic features and performed immunohistochemical staining for a range of markers.
Main study results, which were reported in Human Pathology, showed that 65.4% of the tumors were PRCC subtype 1 and 34.6% were PRCC subtype 2. The former more commonly had foamy macrophages and expressed cytokeratin 7, whereas the latter more commonly had abundant cytoplasm, expressed E-cadherin and p53, and had high MIB1 expression (staining of more than 15% of cells), which indicated a high proliferation rate (P less than .05 for each). The latter also had higher stage and higher grade.
Univariate analysis in the entire study cohort showed that racemase expression and cytokeratin 7 expression were favorable prognostic factors for overall survival, whereas presence of abundant cytoplasm and psammoma bodies, high MIB1 expression, and PRCC subtype 2 were unfavorable prognostic factors.
However, in multivariate analysis, only four factors were independent predictors of death: high tumor MIB1 expression (hazard ratio, 2.465; P = .033), higher T stage (P = .036), metastases (HR, 4.334; P = .011), and age older than the median of 63 years at surgery (HR, 2.384; P = .005). Notably, tumor subtype did not independently predict this outcome.
“[T]he better [overall survival] in PRCC1 is mainly a reflection of its encapsulated nature associated with lower TNM stage … while enhanced proliferation might add to the aggressive nature of high grade and high stage tumors independently from PRCC subtype,” the investigators propose.
“PRCC subtype on its own is not suitable for estimating survival. More data focusing on PRCC tumor biology is needed to define prognostic subgroups, especially in PRCC2,” they conclude.
The investigators disclosed that they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding.
SOURCE: Polifka I et al. Hum Pathol. 2018 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.08.006.
Although the two major subtypes of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) differ on a variety of measures of aggressiveness, subtype is not independently prognostic, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted by the German Network of Kidney Cancer.
Investigators led by Iris Polifka, an intern at the Institute of Pathology at the University Hospital Erlangen (Germany), characterized 376 renal tumors initially diagnosed as PRCC. They reviewed histologic features and performed immunohistochemical staining for a range of markers.
Main study results, which were reported in Human Pathology, showed that 65.4% of the tumors were PRCC subtype 1 and 34.6% were PRCC subtype 2. The former more commonly had foamy macrophages and expressed cytokeratin 7, whereas the latter more commonly had abundant cytoplasm, expressed E-cadherin and p53, and had high MIB1 expression (staining of more than 15% of cells), which indicated a high proliferation rate (P less than .05 for each). The latter also had higher stage and higher grade.
Univariate analysis in the entire study cohort showed that racemase expression and cytokeratin 7 expression were favorable prognostic factors for overall survival, whereas presence of abundant cytoplasm and psammoma bodies, high MIB1 expression, and PRCC subtype 2 were unfavorable prognostic factors.
However, in multivariate analysis, only four factors were independent predictors of death: high tumor MIB1 expression (hazard ratio, 2.465; P = .033), higher T stage (P = .036), metastases (HR, 4.334; P = .011), and age older than the median of 63 years at surgery (HR, 2.384; P = .005). Notably, tumor subtype did not independently predict this outcome.
“[T]he better [overall survival] in PRCC1 is mainly a reflection of its encapsulated nature associated with lower TNM stage … while enhanced proliferation might add to the aggressive nature of high grade and high stage tumors independently from PRCC subtype,” the investigators propose.
“PRCC subtype on its own is not suitable for estimating survival. More data focusing on PRCC tumor biology is needed to define prognostic subgroups, especially in PRCC2,” they conclude.
The investigators disclosed that they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding.
SOURCE: Polifka I et al. Hum Pathol. 2018 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.08.006.
Although the two major subtypes of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) differ on a variety of measures of aggressiveness, subtype is not independently prognostic, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted by the German Network of Kidney Cancer.
Investigators led by Iris Polifka, an intern at the Institute of Pathology at the University Hospital Erlangen (Germany), characterized 376 renal tumors initially diagnosed as PRCC. They reviewed histologic features and performed immunohistochemical staining for a range of markers.
Main study results, which were reported in Human Pathology, showed that 65.4% of the tumors were PRCC subtype 1 and 34.6% were PRCC subtype 2. The former more commonly had foamy macrophages and expressed cytokeratin 7, whereas the latter more commonly had abundant cytoplasm, expressed E-cadherin and p53, and had high MIB1 expression (staining of more than 15% of cells), which indicated a high proliferation rate (P less than .05 for each). The latter also had higher stage and higher grade.
Univariate analysis in the entire study cohort showed that racemase expression and cytokeratin 7 expression were favorable prognostic factors for overall survival, whereas presence of abundant cytoplasm and psammoma bodies, high MIB1 expression, and PRCC subtype 2 were unfavorable prognostic factors.
However, in multivariate analysis, only four factors were independent predictors of death: high tumor MIB1 expression (hazard ratio, 2.465; P = .033), higher T stage (P = .036), metastases (HR, 4.334; P = .011), and age older than the median of 63 years at surgery (HR, 2.384; P = .005). Notably, tumor subtype did not independently predict this outcome.
“[T]he better [overall survival] in PRCC1 is mainly a reflection of its encapsulated nature associated with lower TNM stage … while enhanced proliferation might add to the aggressive nature of high grade and high stage tumors independently from PRCC subtype,” the investigators propose.
“PRCC subtype on its own is not suitable for estimating survival. More data focusing on PRCC tumor biology is needed to define prognostic subgroups, especially in PRCC2,” they conclude.
The investigators disclosed that they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding.
SOURCE: Polifka I et al. Hum Pathol. 2018 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.08.006.
FROM HUMAN PATHOLOGY
Key clinical point: Tumor proliferation, TNM stage, and patient age are independently prognostic in PRCC, whereas tumor subtype is not.
Major finding: Patients had poorer overall survival if they had high tumor MIB1 expression (hazard ratio, 2.465), higher tumor T stage (P = .036), or metastases (hazard ratio, 4.334), or were older (hazard ratio, 2.384).
Study details: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 376 renal tumors initially diagnosed as PRCC.
Disclosures: The investigators disclosed that they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding.
Source: Polifka I et al. Hum Pathol. 2018 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.08.006.
Meta-analysis supports rituximab maintenance in MCL
albeit with the trade-off of higher risk of neutropenia, according to results of a meta-analysis reported in HemaSphere.
Investigators led by Liat Vidal, MD, of Tel-Aviv University, analyzed data from six randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy including 858 patients with MCL who had a complete or partial response to induction therapy. The maintenance therapy was rituximab in five trials and bortezomib (Velcade) in one trial. The median duration of follow-up was 26-59 months across trials.
Main results showed that, compared with patients who were simply observed or given maintenance interferon-alfa, those given maintenance rituximab had a significantly reduced risk of progression or death (pooled hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.73) and a nonsignificantly reduced risk of death (pHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06).
Rituximab maintenance therapy was associated with a doubling of the risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (risk ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.50-2.73). However, there was no significant difference between groups with respect to risks of infection, or grade 3 or 4 anemia or thrombocythemia.
None of the included trials reported on quality of life outcomes.
The lone trial of bortezomib maintenance did not find any significant event-free survival or overall survival benefit.
“Based on our results, rituximab maintenance is recommended after immunochemotherapy with R-CHOP or cytarabine-containing induction in the front-line setting for transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients, and after R-CHOP in the relapse setting. It is unclear if maintenance is of benefit after different induction chemotherapy such as bendamustine or fludarabine,” Dr. Vidal and coauthors conclude. “By contrast, current data does not support improved outcomes with bortezomib maintenance for MCL patients.”
Dr. Vidal disclosed that she is an employee of Syneos Health. The study received no funding.
SOURCE: Vidal L et al. HemaSphere. 2018 Aug;2(4):e136.
albeit with the trade-off of higher risk of neutropenia, according to results of a meta-analysis reported in HemaSphere.
Investigators led by Liat Vidal, MD, of Tel-Aviv University, analyzed data from six randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy including 858 patients with MCL who had a complete or partial response to induction therapy. The maintenance therapy was rituximab in five trials and bortezomib (Velcade) in one trial. The median duration of follow-up was 26-59 months across trials.
Main results showed that, compared with patients who were simply observed or given maintenance interferon-alfa, those given maintenance rituximab had a significantly reduced risk of progression or death (pooled hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.73) and a nonsignificantly reduced risk of death (pHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06).
Rituximab maintenance therapy was associated with a doubling of the risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (risk ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.50-2.73). However, there was no significant difference between groups with respect to risks of infection, or grade 3 or 4 anemia or thrombocythemia.
None of the included trials reported on quality of life outcomes.
The lone trial of bortezomib maintenance did not find any significant event-free survival or overall survival benefit.
“Based on our results, rituximab maintenance is recommended after immunochemotherapy with R-CHOP or cytarabine-containing induction in the front-line setting for transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients, and after R-CHOP in the relapse setting. It is unclear if maintenance is of benefit after different induction chemotherapy such as bendamustine or fludarabine,” Dr. Vidal and coauthors conclude. “By contrast, current data does not support improved outcomes with bortezomib maintenance for MCL patients.”
Dr. Vidal disclosed that she is an employee of Syneos Health. The study received no funding.
SOURCE: Vidal L et al. HemaSphere. 2018 Aug;2(4):e136.
albeit with the trade-off of higher risk of neutropenia, according to results of a meta-analysis reported in HemaSphere.
Investigators led by Liat Vidal, MD, of Tel-Aviv University, analyzed data from six randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy including 858 patients with MCL who had a complete or partial response to induction therapy. The maintenance therapy was rituximab in five trials and bortezomib (Velcade) in one trial. The median duration of follow-up was 26-59 months across trials.
Main results showed that, compared with patients who were simply observed or given maintenance interferon-alfa, those given maintenance rituximab had a significantly reduced risk of progression or death (pooled hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.73) and a nonsignificantly reduced risk of death (pHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06).
Rituximab maintenance therapy was associated with a doubling of the risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (risk ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.50-2.73). However, there was no significant difference between groups with respect to risks of infection, or grade 3 or 4 anemia or thrombocythemia.
None of the included trials reported on quality of life outcomes.
The lone trial of bortezomib maintenance did not find any significant event-free survival or overall survival benefit.
“Based on our results, rituximab maintenance is recommended after immunochemotherapy with R-CHOP or cytarabine-containing induction in the front-line setting for transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients, and after R-CHOP in the relapse setting. It is unclear if maintenance is of benefit after different induction chemotherapy such as bendamustine or fludarabine,” Dr. Vidal and coauthors conclude. “By contrast, current data does not support improved outcomes with bortezomib maintenance for MCL patients.”
Dr. Vidal disclosed that she is an employee of Syneos Health. The study received no funding.
SOURCE: Vidal L et al. HemaSphere. 2018 Aug;2(4):e136.
FROM HEMASPHERE
Key clinical point: Rituximab maintenance therapy improves outcomes in patients with MCL.
Major finding: Compared with observation or maintenance interferon-alfa, maintenance rituximab was associated with reduced risk of progression-free survival events (HR, 0.58) and increased risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (RR, 2.02).
Study details: A meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials including 858 patients with MCL who had a response to induction therapy.
Disclosures: Dr. Vidal disclosed that she is an employee of Syneos Health. The study received no funding.
Source: Vidal L et al. HemaSphere. 2018 Aug;2(4):e136.
Auto-HSCT linked to higher AML, MDS risk
Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) for lymphoma or myeloma have an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to a retrospective study.
The study suggested these patients have 10 to 100 times the risk of AML or MDS as the general population.
The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar lymphoma and myeloma patients largely untreated with auto-HSCT.
Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia Research.
The investigators noted that exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation—both used in auto-HSCT—is known to increase the risk of AML and MDS.
With this in mind, the team analyzed data on auto-HSCT recipients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).
Analyses were based on 9028 patients undergoing auto-HSCT from 1995 to 2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (n=916), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=3546), or plasma cell myeloma (n=4566). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.
Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant.
More aggressive transplant protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome. The risk of developing AML or MDS was higher for:
- Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0)
- NHL patients who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen (bischloroethylnitrosourea, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan)
- NHL or myeloma patients who received 3 or more lines of chemotherapy versus 1 line (HR, 1.9 for NHL and 1.8 for myeloma)
- NHL patients who underwent transplant in 2005 to 2010 versus 1995 to 1999 (HR, 2.1).
Patients reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database with the same lymphoma and myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent auto-HSCT, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5 to 10 times higher than the background level in the population.
However, the study auto-HSCT cohort had a risk of AML that was 10 to 50 times higher and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.
“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for [auto-HSCT], but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.
The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown.
“One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased post-transplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” the investigators wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age . . . and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (ie, marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”
The study authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The CIBMTR is supported by several US government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) for lymphoma or myeloma have an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to a retrospective study.
The study suggested these patients have 10 to 100 times the risk of AML or MDS as the general population.
The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar lymphoma and myeloma patients largely untreated with auto-HSCT.
Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia Research.
The investigators noted that exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation—both used in auto-HSCT—is known to increase the risk of AML and MDS.
With this in mind, the team analyzed data on auto-HSCT recipients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).
Analyses were based on 9028 patients undergoing auto-HSCT from 1995 to 2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (n=916), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=3546), or plasma cell myeloma (n=4566). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.
Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant.
More aggressive transplant protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome. The risk of developing AML or MDS was higher for:
- Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0)
- NHL patients who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen (bischloroethylnitrosourea, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan)
- NHL or myeloma patients who received 3 or more lines of chemotherapy versus 1 line (HR, 1.9 for NHL and 1.8 for myeloma)
- NHL patients who underwent transplant in 2005 to 2010 versus 1995 to 1999 (HR, 2.1).
Patients reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database with the same lymphoma and myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent auto-HSCT, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5 to 10 times higher than the background level in the population.
However, the study auto-HSCT cohort had a risk of AML that was 10 to 50 times higher and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.
“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for [auto-HSCT], but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.
The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown.
“One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased post-transplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” the investigators wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age . . . and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (ie, marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”
The study authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The CIBMTR is supported by several US government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) for lymphoma or myeloma have an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to a retrospective study.
The study suggested these patients have 10 to 100 times the risk of AML or MDS as the general population.
The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar lymphoma and myeloma patients largely untreated with auto-HSCT.
Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia Research.
The investigators noted that exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation—both used in auto-HSCT—is known to increase the risk of AML and MDS.
With this in mind, the team analyzed data on auto-HSCT recipients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).
Analyses were based on 9028 patients undergoing auto-HSCT from 1995 to 2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (n=916), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=3546), or plasma cell myeloma (n=4566). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.
Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant.
More aggressive transplant protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome. The risk of developing AML or MDS was higher for:
- Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0)
- NHL patients who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen (bischloroethylnitrosourea, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan)
- NHL or myeloma patients who received 3 or more lines of chemotherapy versus 1 line (HR, 1.9 for NHL and 1.8 for myeloma)
- NHL patients who underwent transplant in 2005 to 2010 versus 1995 to 1999 (HR, 2.1).
Patients reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database with the same lymphoma and myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent auto-HSCT, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5 to 10 times higher than the background level in the population.
However, the study auto-HSCT cohort had a risk of AML that was 10 to 50 times higher and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.
“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for [auto-HSCT], but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.
The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown.
“One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased post-transplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” the investigators wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age . . . and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (ie, marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”
The study authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The CIBMTR is supported by several US government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Autotransplant is linked to higher AML, MDS risk
Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma have 10-100 times the risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) seen in the general population, according to a retrospective cohort study.
The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar patients largely untreated with autotransplant.
Exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation – both used in autotransplant – is known to increase risk of these treatment-related myeloid neoplasms, according to Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and his colleagues. Concern about this complication has been growing as long-term survivorship after transplant improves.
The investigators analyzed data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Analyses were based on 9,028 patients undergoing autotransplant during 1995-2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (916 patients), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (3,546 patients), or plasma cell myeloma (4,566 patients). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.
Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant. More aggressive transplantation protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome: Risk was higher for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 4.0); patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen; patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma who received three or more lines of chemotherapy versus just one line (HR, 1.9 and 1.8, respectively); and patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who underwent transplantation in 2005-2010 versus 1995-1999 (HR, 2.1).
Patients reported to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database with the same lymphoma and plasma cell myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent autotransplant, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5-10 times higher than the background level in the population. But the study autotransplant cohort had a risk of AML that was 10-50 times higher, and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.
“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for the autotransplant, but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr. Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.
The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown. “One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased posttransplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” they wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age … and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (i.e., marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”
The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by several U.S. government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Radivoyevitch T et al. Leuk Res. 2018 Jul 19. pii: S0145-2126(18)30160-7.
Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma have 10-100 times the risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) seen in the general population, according to a retrospective cohort study.
The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar patients largely untreated with autotransplant.
Exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation – both used in autotransplant – is known to increase risk of these treatment-related myeloid neoplasms, according to Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and his colleagues. Concern about this complication has been growing as long-term survivorship after transplant improves.
The investigators analyzed data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Analyses were based on 9,028 patients undergoing autotransplant during 1995-2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (916 patients), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (3,546 patients), or plasma cell myeloma (4,566 patients). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.
Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant. More aggressive transplantation protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome: Risk was higher for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 4.0); patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen; patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma who received three or more lines of chemotherapy versus just one line (HR, 1.9 and 1.8, respectively); and patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who underwent transplantation in 2005-2010 versus 1995-1999 (HR, 2.1).
Patients reported to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database with the same lymphoma and plasma cell myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent autotransplant, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5-10 times higher than the background level in the population. But the study autotransplant cohort had a risk of AML that was 10-50 times higher, and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.
“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for the autotransplant, but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr. Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.
The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown. “One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased posttransplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” they wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age … and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (i.e., marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”
The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by several U.S. government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Radivoyevitch T et al. Leuk Res. 2018 Jul 19. pii: S0145-2126(18)30160-7.
Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma have 10-100 times the risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) seen in the general population, according to a retrospective cohort study.
The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar patients largely untreated with autotransplant.
Exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation – both used in autotransplant – is known to increase risk of these treatment-related myeloid neoplasms, according to Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and his colleagues. Concern about this complication has been growing as long-term survivorship after transplant improves.
The investigators analyzed data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Analyses were based on 9,028 patients undergoing autotransplant during 1995-2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (916 patients), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (3,546 patients), or plasma cell myeloma (4,566 patients). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.
Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant. More aggressive transplantation protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome: Risk was higher for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 4.0); patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen; patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or plasma cell myeloma who received three or more lines of chemotherapy versus just one line (HR, 1.9 and 1.8, respectively); and patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who underwent transplantation in 2005-2010 versus 1995-1999 (HR, 2.1).
Patients reported to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database with the same lymphoma and plasma cell myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent autotransplant, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5-10 times higher than the background level in the population. But the study autotransplant cohort had a risk of AML that was 10-50 times higher, and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.
“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for the autotransplant, but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr. Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.
The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown. “One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased posttransplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” they wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age … and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (i.e., marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”
The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by several U.S. government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Radivoyevitch T et al. Leuk Res. 2018 Jul 19. pii: S0145-2126(18)30160-7.
FROM LEUKEMIA RESEARCH
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation have risks for AML and MDS that are 10-100 times higher than those of the general population.
Study details: A retrospective cohort study of 9,028 patients undergoing hematopoietic cell autotransplant during 1995-2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or plasma cell myeloma.
Disclosures: The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by U.S. government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. The authors reported that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.
Source: Radivoyevitch T et al. Leuk Res. 2018 Jul 19. pii: S0145-2126(18)30160-7.
Broad genomic testing of NSCLC in community oncology disappoints
results of a retrospective cohort study reported in JAMA suggest.
Investigators led by Carolyn J. Presley, MD, a thoracic and geriatric medical oncologist at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, assessed outcomes among more than 5,500 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC treated mainly in U.S. community practices. Overall, 15% had broad-based genomic testing (next-generation sequencing evaluating more than 30 cancer genes).
Main results showed that, among the patients having broad testing, less than 5% received a targeted treatment based on results that were not attainable with routine testing for common alterations in EGFR and ALK genes. Moreover, survival after broad testing was not better than that after routine testing.
“This study highlights how broad-based genomic sequencing has disseminated beyond traditional research settings ahead of a demonstrated association with better survival,” Dr. Presley and her coinvestigators write. They speculate that community uptake is being driven by the ease and cost of ordering a single comprehensive test, perceived benefit, attempts to conserve tissue, and hopes of improved survival if a targeted treatment is available.
“The lack of an association between broad-based genomic sequencing and survival is likely multifactorial,” the investigators maintain. “First, there were few genetic alterations identified with available targeted treatments. Second, even among those patients for whom targeted treatments were available, the treatments may not yield a substantial survival benefit or patients may not have had access to targeted agents due to financial barriers. Decision support for clinicians once they receive broad-based genomic sequencing results may also be needed.”
Study details
Dr. Presley and colleagues used the Flatiron Health Database to identify patients with advanced NSCLC who received care at 191 oncology practices across the United States during 2011-2016. The 5,688 patients studied had stage IIIB, stage IV, or unresectable nonsquamous NSCLC and received at least one line of treatment.
Overall, 15.4% received broad-based genomic sequencing of their tumor, while the rest received routine testing for EGFR and/or ALK alterations only, according to the results reported.
In the broadly tested group, merely 4.5% were given targeted treatment based on testing results. Another 9.8% received routine EGFR/ALK-targeted treatment, and 85.1% did not receive any targeted treatment.
The 12-month unadjusted mortality rate was 49.2% for patients undergoing broad testing, compared with 35.9% for patients undergoing routine testing.
In an instrumental variable analysis done to account for confounding, the 12-month predicted probability of death was 41.1% after broad testing and 44.4% after routine testing (P = .63).
Findings were similar in a propensity score–matched survival analysis (42.0% vs. 45.1%; hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .40), although there was some suggestion of a benefit of broad testing over routine testing in a Kaplan-Meier analysis among the entire unmatched cohort (HR, 0.69; P less than .001).
“Improved access to research clinical trials in the community setting may improve use of mutational data,” the investigators speculate. “Given the paucity of targeted agents, efforts to increase access to broad-based genomic sequencing should be paired with efforts to facilitate clinical trial enrollment.”
Dr. Presley disclosed that she receives grants from the Yale Lung SPORE Career Development Award, the Robert Wood Johnson/Veterans Affairs Clinical Scholars Program, and The Ohio State University K12 Training Grant for clinical faculty investigators. The study was funded by the Veterans Affairs Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar Program and the Yale Lung SPORE Career Development Award.
SOURCE: Presley CJ et al. JAMA. 2018 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.9824.
There still may be a role for broad-based genomic testing in patients with NSCLC treated in community oncology practices, according to editorialists Paul A. Bunn Jr., MD, and Dara L. Aisner, MD, PhD. They discussed several study limitations that leave the matter unsettled.
Importantly, the majority of patients in whom this testing identified a potentially treatable alteration did not receive the treatment. “This gap between finding and treating molecular alterations in the community-based clinical setting highlights the reality that obtaining more tumor genomic information must be complemented with clinician education and decision support to understand the importance of matched therapy, and demonstrates a strength of harnessing EMR data to identify potential gaps in practice,” they maintain.
The study did not assess important outcomes other than survival, such as progression-free survival and response rate, Dr. Bunn and Dr. Aisner further note. Previous research has shown that tyrosine kinase inhibitors, for example, improve some of these outcomes without altering survival.
Another limitation was that the study period predated regulatory approval of some relevant targeted therapies and came shortly on the heels of approval of a targeted therapy for ALK rearrangements. And additional therapies are in the pipeline.
“[T]he incremental value of a cutoff of 30 genes analyzed may place the bar too high to appreciate a survival advantage and the tissue, time, and cost savings due to next-generation sequencing were not considered,” the editorialists point out. The optimal number of genes is unclear and likely to change over time.
Finally, the reports oncologists receive from broad-based genomic sequencing may be long and complex, which may deter them from pursuing appropriate therapy, Dr. Bunn and Dr. Aisner propose.
“The study… provides important insights into how broad-based genomic sequencing is used in the community oncology setting, where the majority of patients with advanced NSCLC in the United States receive care,” they conclude. “However, the limitations of this investigation suggest that the authors’ conclusion that broad testing is not warranted should be tempered to ensure that patients receive the right therapy for the right alteration at the right time.”
Paul A. Bunn Jr., MD, is with the University of Colorado Cancer Center and department of medical oncology, University of Colorado, Denver and Dara L. Aisner, MD, PhD, is with the University of Colorado Cancer Center and department of pathology, University of Colorado, Aurora. These comments were excerpted from an accompanying editorial .
There still may be a role for broad-based genomic testing in patients with NSCLC treated in community oncology practices, according to editorialists Paul A. Bunn Jr., MD, and Dara L. Aisner, MD, PhD. They discussed several study limitations that leave the matter unsettled.
Importantly, the majority of patients in whom this testing identified a potentially treatable alteration did not receive the treatment. “This gap between finding and treating molecular alterations in the community-based clinical setting highlights the reality that obtaining more tumor genomic information must be complemented with clinician education and decision support to understand the importance of matched therapy, and demonstrates a strength of harnessing EMR data to identify potential gaps in practice,” they maintain.
The study did not assess important outcomes other than survival, such as progression-free survival and response rate, Dr. Bunn and Dr. Aisner further note. Previous research has shown that tyrosine kinase inhibitors, for example, improve some of these outcomes without altering survival.
Another limitation was that the study period predated regulatory approval of some relevant targeted therapies and came shortly on the heels of approval of a targeted therapy for ALK rearrangements. And additional therapies are in the pipeline.
“[T]he incremental value of a cutoff of 30 genes analyzed may place the bar too high to appreciate a survival advantage and the tissue, time, and cost savings due to next-generation sequencing were not considered,” the editorialists point out. The optimal number of genes is unclear and likely to change over time.
Finally, the reports oncologists receive from broad-based genomic sequencing may be long and complex, which may deter them from pursuing appropriate therapy, Dr. Bunn and Dr. Aisner propose.
“The study… provides important insights into how broad-based genomic sequencing is used in the community oncology setting, where the majority of patients with advanced NSCLC in the United States receive care,” they conclude. “However, the limitations of this investigation suggest that the authors’ conclusion that broad testing is not warranted should be tempered to ensure that patients receive the right therapy for the right alteration at the right time.”
Paul A. Bunn Jr., MD, is with the University of Colorado Cancer Center and department of medical oncology, University of Colorado, Denver and Dara L. Aisner, MD, PhD, is with the University of Colorado Cancer Center and department of pathology, University of Colorado, Aurora. These comments were excerpted from an accompanying editorial .
There still may be a role for broad-based genomic testing in patients with NSCLC treated in community oncology practices, according to editorialists Paul A. Bunn Jr., MD, and Dara L. Aisner, MD, PhD. They discussed several study limitations that leave the matter unsettled.
Importantly, the majority of patients in whom this testing identified a potentially treatable alteration did not receive the treatment. “This gap between finding and treating molecular alterations in the community-based clinical setting highlights the reality that obtaining more tumor genomic information must be complemented with clinician education and decision support to understand the importance of matched therapy, and demonstrates a strength of harnessing EMR data to identify potential gaps in practice,” they maintain.
The study did not assess important outcomes other than survival, such as progression-free survival and response rate, Dr. Bunn and Dr. Aisner further note. Previous research has shown that tyrosine kinase inhibitors, for example, improve some of these outcomes without altering survival.
Another limitation was that the study period predated regulatory approval of some relevant targeted therapies and came shortly on the heels of approval of a targeted therapy for ALK rearrangements. And additional therapies are in the pipeline.
“[T]he incremental value of a cutoff of 30 genes analyzed may place the bar too high to appreciate a survival advantage and the tissue, time, and cost savings due to next-generation sequencing were not considered,” the editorialists point out. The optimal number of genes is unclear and likely to change over time.
Finally, the reports oncologists receive from broad-based genomic sequencing may be long and complex, which may deter them from pursuing appropriate therapy, Dr. Bunn and Dr. Aisner propose.
“The study… provides important insights into how broad-based genomic sequencing is used in the community oncology setting, where the majority of patients with advanced NSCLC in the United States receive care,” they conclude. “However, the limitations of this investigation suggest that the authors’ conclusion that broad testing is not warranted should be tempered to ensure that patients receive the right therapy for the right alteration at the right time.”
Paul A. Bunn Jr., MD, is with the University of Colorado Cancer Center and department of medical oncology, University of Colorado, Denver and Dara L. Aisner, MD, PhD, is with the University of Colorado Cancer Center and department of pathology, University of Colorado, Aurora. These comments were excerpted from an accompanying editorial .
results of a retrospective cohort study reported in JAMA suggest.
Investigators led by Carolyn J. Presley, MD, a thoracic and geriatric medical oncologist at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, assessed outcomes among more than 5,500 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC treated mainly in U.S. community practices. Overall, 15% had broad-based genomic testing (next-generation sequencing evaluating more than 30 cancer genes).
Main results showed that, among the patients having broad testing, less than 5% received a targeted treatment based on results that were not attainable with routine testing for common alterations in EGFR and ALK genes. Moreover, survival after broad testing was not better than that after routine testing.
“This study highlights how broad-based genomic sequencing has disseminated beyond traditional research settings ahead of a demonstrated association with better survival,” Dr. Presley and her coinvestigators write. They speculate that community uptake is being driven by the ease and cost of ordering a single comprehensive test, perceived benefit, attempts to conserve tissue, and hopes of improved survival if a targeted treatment is available.
“The lack of an association between broad-based genomic sequencing and survival is likely multifactorial,” the investigators maintain. “First, there were few genetic alterations identified with available targeted treatments. Second, even among those patients for whom targeted treatments were available, the treatments may not yield a substantial survival benefit or patients may not have had access to targeted agents due to financial barriers. Decision support for clinicians once they receive broad-based genomic sequencing results may also be needed.”
Study details
Dr. Presley and colleagues used the Flatiron Health Database to identify patients with advanced NSCLC who received care at 191 oncology practices across the United States during 2011-2016. The 5,688 patients studied had stage IIIB, stage IV, or unresectable nonsquamous NSCLC and received at least one line of treatment.
Overall, 15.4% received broad-based genomic sequencing of their tumor, while the rest received routine testing for EGFR and/or ALK alterations only, according to the results reported.
In the broadly tested group, merely 4.5% were given targeted treatment based on testing results. Another 9.8% received routine EGFR/ALK-targeted treatment, and 85.1% did not receive any targeted treatment.
The 12-month unadjusted mortality rate was 49.2% for patients undergoing broad testing, compared with 35.9% for patients undergoing routine testing.
In an instrumental variable analysis done to account for confounding, the 12-month predicted probability of death was 41.1% after broad testing and 44.4% after routine testing (P = .63).
Findings were similar in a propensity score–matched survival analysis (42.0% vs. 45.1%; hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .40), although there was some suggestion of a benefit of broad testing over routine testing in a Kaplan-Meier analysis among the entire unmatched cohort (HR, 0.69; P less than .001).
“Improved access to research clinical trials in the community setting may improve use of mutational data,” the investigators speculate. “Given the paucity of targeted agents, efforts to increase access to broad-based genomic sequencing should be paired with efforts to facilitate clinical trial enrollment.”
Dr. Presley disclosed that she receives grants from the Yale Lung SPORE Career Development Award, the Robert Wood Johnson/Veterans Affairs Clinical Scholars Program, and The Ohio State University K12 Training Grant for clinical faculty investigators. The study was funded by the Veterans Affairs Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar Program and the Yale Lung SPORE Career Development Award.
SOURCE: Presley CJ et al. JAMA. 2018 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.9824.
results of a retrospective cohort study reported in JAMA suggest.
Investigators led by Carolyn J. Presley, MD, a thoracic and geriatric medical oncologist at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, assessed outcomes among more than 5,500 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC treated mainly in U.S. community practices. Overall, 15% had broad-based genomic testing (next-generation sequencing evaluating more than 30 cancer genes).
Main results showed that, among the patients having broad testing, less than 5% received a targeted treatment based on results that were not attainable with routine testing for common alterations in EGFR and ALK genes. Moreover, survival after broad testing was not better than that after routine testing.
“This study highlights how broad-based genomic sequencing has disseminated beyond traditional research settings ahead of a demonstrated association with better survival,” Dr. Presley and her coinvestigators write. They speculate that community uptake is being driven by the ease and cost of ordering a single comprehensive test, perceived benefit, attempts to conserve tissue, and hopes of improved survival if a targeted treatment is available.
“The lack of an association between broad-based genomic sequencing and survival is likely multifactorial,” the investigators maintain. “First, there were few genetic alterations identified with available targeted treatments. Second, even among those patients for whom targeted treatments were available, the treatments may not yield a substantial survival benefit or patients may not have had access to targeted agents due to financial barriers. Decision support for clinicians once they receive broad-based genomic sequencing results may also be needed.”
Study details
Dr. Presley and colleagues used the Flatiron Health Database to identify patients with advanced NSCLC who received care at 191 oncology practices across the United States during 2011-2016. The 5,688 patients studied had stage IIIB, stage IV, or unresectable nonsquamous NSCLC and received at least one line of treatment.
Overall, 15.4% received broad-based genomic sequencing of their tumor, while the rest received routine testing for EGFR and/or ALK alterations only, according to the results reported.
In the broadly tested group, merely 4.5% were given targeted treatment based on testing results. Another 9.8% received routine EGFR/ALK-targeted treatment, and 85.1% did not receive any targeted treatment.
The 12-month unadjusted mortality rate was 49.2% for patients undergoing broad testing, compared with 35.9% for patients undergoing routine testing.
In an instrumental variable analysis done to account for confounding, the 12-month predicted probability of death was 41.1% after broad testing and 44.4% after routine testing (P = .63).
Findings were similar in a propensity score–matched survival analysis (42.0% vs. 45.1%; hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .40), although there was some suggestion of a benefit of broad testing over routine testing in a Kaplan-Meier analysis among the entire unmatched cohort (HR, 0.69; P less than .001).
“Improved access to research clinical trials in the community setting may improve use of mutational data,” the investigators speculate. “Given the paucity of targeted agents, efforts to increase access to broad-based genomic sequencing should be paired with efforts to facilitate clinical trial enrollment.”
Dr. Presley disclosed that she receives grants from the Yale Lung SPORE Career Development Award, the Robert Wood Johnson/Veterans Affairs Clinical Scholars Program, and The Ohio State University K12 Training Grant for clinical faculty investigators. The study was funded by the Veterans Affairs Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar Program and the Yale Lung SPORE Career Development Award.
SOURCE: Presley CJ et al. JAMA. 2018 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.9824.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point: In community oncology, broad-based genomic sequencing of NSCLC does not improve survival when compared with routine testing.
Major finding: The 12-month mortality rate was 49.2% for patients undergoing broad-based genomic sequencing and 35.9% for patients undergoing routine testing solely for EGFR and/or ALK alterations.
Study details: A retrospective cohort study of 5,688 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC treated in 191 U.S. community practices.
Disclosures: Dr. Presley disclosed that she receives grants from the Yale Lung SPORE Career Development Award, the Robert Wood Johnson/Veterans Affairs Clinical Scholars Program, and The Ohio State University K12 Training Grant for clinical faculty investigators. The study was funded by the Veterans Affairs Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar Program and the Yale Lung SPORE Career Development Award.
Source: Presley CJ et al. JAMA. 2018 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.9824.
Trio of biosimilars have good showing
CHICAGO – investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The findings further advance the promise of new agents that have no clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety when compared with their reference drugs but have substantially lower cost.
Bevacizumab biosimilar
The REFLECTIONS trial (NCT02364999) was a multinational, first-line, randomized, controlled trial among 719 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Patients were randomized to paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab (sourced from the European Union) or the candidate bevacizumab biosimilar PF-06439535 on a double-blind basis, followed by monotherapy with the same assigned agent.
The confidence interval for the risk difference fell within the equivalence margins set by European Union regulators (–13% and +13% for the 95% confidence interval). And the confidence interval for the risk ratio fell within the equivalence margins set by the Food and Drug Administration (0.73 and 1.37 for the 90% CI) and Japanese regulators (0.729 and 1.371 for the 95% CI).
Median progression-free survival was 9.0 months with the biosimilar and 7.7 months with bevacizumab (hazard ratio, 0.974; P = .814), and corresponding 1-year rates were 30.8% and 29.3%, Dr. Socinski reported. Median overall survival was 18.4 months and 17.8 months (HR, 1.001; P = .991), and corresponding 1-year rates were 66.4% and 68.8%.
Rates of grade 3 or higher hypertension, cardiac disorders, and bleeding did not differ significantly with the two agents. Patients also had similar rates of grade 3 or higher serious adverse events and of fatal (grade 5) serious adverse events (5.3% with the biosimilar and 5.9% with bevacizumab).
“Similarity between PF-06439535 and bevacizumab-EU was demonstrated for the primary efficacy endpoint of overall response rate. ... There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety profile shown in this trial, and similar pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity results were seen across treatment groups,” Dr. Socinski summarized.
“These results confirm similarity demonstrated in earlier analytical, nonclinical, and clinical studies of PF-06439535 with bevacizumab-EU,” he concluded.
Trastuzumab biosimilar
The phase 3 HERITAGE trial was a first-line, randomized, controlled trial that compared biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) with trastuzumab in combination with taxane chemotherapy and then as maintenance monotherapy in 458 patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer.
The 24-week results, previously reported (JAMA. 2017 Jan 3;317[1]:37-47), showed a similar overall response rate with each agent when combined with chemotherapy. Rates of various adverse events were essentially the same.
Presence of overall response at 24 weeks correlated with duration of progression-free survival at 48 weeks (biserial r = .752). “Additional patients achieved a response during the monotherapy portion of the treatment, which is intriguing and clearly emphasizes the importance of monotherapy, as well as the importance of having alternate agents at lower cost available,” Dr. Rugo commented.
Common adverse events through week 48 were much the same as those seen at week 24, with few additional ones occurring during monotherapy. “No new safety issues were observed, and in fact, toxicity during monotherapy was quite minor,” she noted. “One thing that’s interesting here is that there was more arthralgia during the first 24 weeks with trastuzumab-dkst than with trastuzumab, but in monotherapy, this fell down to a very low number and was identical between the two arms. Paclitaxel, which people stayed on for longer [with the biosimilar], may have been the cause of this.”
The 48-week rates of adverse events of special interest – respiratory events, cardiac disorders, and infusion-related adverse events – and of serious adverse events were similar for the two agents.
“We didn’t see any additional serious cardiac events during monotherapy,” Dr. Rugo noted. Mean and median left ventricular ejection fraction over 48 weeks were similar, as was the rate of LVEF, which dropped below 50% (4.0% with trastuzumab-dkst and 3.3% with trastuzumab). The incidences of antidrug antibody and neutralizing antibody were also comparably low in both groups.
“HERITAGE data, now at week 48, supports trastuzumab-dkst as a biosimilar to trastuzumab in all approved indications,” Dr. Rugo said. “Final overall survival will be assessed after 36 months or after 240 deaths, whichever occurs first. Based on current data, this is predicted to conclude by the end of 2018, with final overall survival data available next year.
“Trastuzumab-dkst provides an additional high-quality treatment option for patients with HER2+ breast cancers in any setting,” she added. “This study indeed shows that biosimilars offer the potential for worldwide cost savings and improved access to life-saving therapies. It’s sobering to think that the patients enrolled in this study would not otherwise have had access to continued trastuzumab therapy, and so many of them are still alive with longer follow-up.”
Filgrastim biosimilar
Investigators led by Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, head of the Breast Center and chair for Conservative Oncology in the department of ob&gyn at the University of Munich (Germany), compared efficacy of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), a biosimilar of filgrastim (recombinant granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, or G-CSF), in a trial population with that of a real-world population of women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Dr. Harbeck and her colleagues compared 217 women who had nonmetastatic breast cancer from the trial with 466 women who had any-stage breast cancer (42% metastatic) from the real-world cohort.
Results showed that the 6.2% rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in any cycle seen in the real-world population was much the same as the 5.1% rate seen previously in the trial population. Findings were similar for temperature exceeding 38.5˚ C in any cycle: 3.4% and 5.6%. The real-world population had a lower rate of severe neutropenia than did the trial population (19.5% vs. 74.3%) and higher rates of infection (15.5% vs. 7.9%) and hospitalization caused by febrile neutropenia (3.9% vs. 1.8%). Findings were essentially the same in cycle-level analyses.
The real-world cohort had many fewer any-severity safety events of special interest than did the trial cohort, such as musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders (20 vs. 261 events, respectively) and skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders (5 vs. 258 events). “Seeing these data, you have to keep in mind first of all that the patients received totally different chemotherapy. TAC chemotherapy has a lot of chemotherapy-associated side effects,” Dr. Harbeck noted. “The other thing is that MONITOR was a real-world database, and one could assume that there is some underreporting of events that are not directly correlated to the events that are of particular interest.”
Additional results available only from the trial showed that no patients developed binding or neutralizing antibodies against G-CSF.
“From a clinician’s point of view, it is very reassuring that we did not see any other safety signals in the real-world data than we saw in the randomized controlled trial and the efficacy was very, very similar,” Dr. Harbeck commented. “Having seen the discrepancies in the data … I think it’s important to have randomized controlled trials to assess and monitor adverse events for registration purposes and real-world evidence to reflect the daily clinical routine,” she concluded.
Dr. Socinski disclosed that his institution receives research funding from Pfizer, among other disclosures; the REFLECTIONS trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Rugo disclosed that she receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Mylan, among other disclosures; the HERITAGE trial was sponsored by Mylan. Dr. Harbeck disclosed that she has a consulting or advisory role with Sandoz, among other disclosures; the PIONEER and MONITOR-GCSF trials were both sponsored by Sandoz.
SOURCE: Socinski MA et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 109. Manikhas A et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 110. Harbeck N et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 111.
A variety of issues are influencing whether and how clinicians incorporate biosimilars into cancer care, according to Michael A. Thompson, MD, PhD, medical director of the Early Phase Cancer Research Program and the Oncology Precision Medicine Program at Aurora Health Care in Milwaukee, Wis., who spoke at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“The issue of competition is highly relevant to biosimilars,” he said. Among important questions here: Is the oncology drug market a free market? Who owns the biosimilar companies? Does competition lower drug prices? And if biosimilars don’t decrease drug cost, why bother pursuing them? “We are seeing examples where the biosimilars have been developed, they appear to work, they appear safe, and really the proof will be how much is this pushing the market to decrease cost,” he noted.
Real-world data provide some insight into how biosimilars are being incorporated into oncology care. For example, in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, hematologists tend to use rituximab (Rituxan) biosimilars in later lines of therapy, in patients with a better performance status and fewer comorbidities, and in cases of indolent or incurable disease (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[suppl; abstr 112]). “So it appears that prescribers are acting tentatively to cautiously test the waters,” Dr. Thompson said.
Use will be influenced by clinical decision support and pathways, whether those are developed by institutions or insurers. These tools generally look at efficacy first, safety second, and cost third.
The relevance of patient choice (especially when physicians decreasingly have a choice) and perception of biosimilars may, or may not, be important, according to Dr. Thompson. In some areas of medicine, there is evidence of a nocebo effect: Patients perceive worsening of symptoms when they believe they are getting a nonbranded medication. But “I am not sure if this is valid in oncology, where we are already using many older chemotherapy drugs, the generics,” he said.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently published a statement on the use of biosimilars and related issues, such as safety and efficacy; naming and labeling; interchangeability, switching, and substitution; and the value proposition of these agents (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Apr 20;36[12]:1260-5). “The ASCO statement and guidelines are a great resource for really digging deeply into this area,” Dr. Thompson commented.
One concern surrounding uptake of biosimilars is the possibility of an actual increase in patient cost related to single sources and potentially differing reimbursement rates, which could diminish the financial benefit of these drugs. Technically, if biosimilars have similar efficacy and safety, and lower cost, they provide greater value than the reference drugs.
But there may still be reasons for not using a higher-value drug, according to Dr. Thompson. Clinicians may have lingering questions about efficacy and safety despite trial data, a situation that is being addressed in Europe by postmarketing pharmacovigilance. Other issues include delays in pathway implementation, the contracting of pharmacies with companies, and creation of new chemotherapy builds in electronic medical records. “These are all minor but potential barriers to as fast an implementation as possible,” he said.
A variety of issues are influencing whether and how clinicians incorporate biosimilars into cancer care, according to Michael A. Thompson, MD, PhD, medical director of the Early Phase Cancer Research Program and the Oncology Precision Medicine Program at Aurora Health Care in Milwaukee, Wis., who spoke at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“The issue of competition is highly relevant to biosimilars,” he said. Among important questions here: Is the oncology drug market a free market? Who owns the biosimilar companies? Does competition lower drug prices? And if biosimilars don’t decrease drug cost, why bother pursuing them? “We are seeing examples where the biosimilars have been developed, they appear to work, they appear safe, and really the proof will be how much is this pushing the market to decrease cost,” he noted.
Real-world data provide some insight into how biosimilars are being incorporated into oncology care. For example, in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, hematologists tend to use rituximab (Rituxan) biosimilars in later lines of therapy, in patients with a better performance status and fewer comorbidities, and in cases of indolent or incurable disease (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[suppl; abstr 112]). “So it appears that prescribers are acting tentatively to cautiously test the waters,” Dr. Thompson said.
Use will be influenced by clinical decision support and pathways, whether those are developed by institutions or insurers. These tools generally look at efficacy first, safety second, and cost third.
The relevance of patient choice (especially when physicians decreasingly have a choice) and perception of biosimilars may, or may not, be important, according to Dr. Thompson. In some areas of medicine, there is evidence of a nocebo effect: Patients perceive worsening of symptoms when they believe they are getting a nonbranded medication. But “I am not sure if this is valid in oncology, where we are already using many older chemotherapy drugs, the generics,” he said.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently published a statement on the use of biosimilars and related issues, such as safety and efficacy; naming and labeling; interchangeability, switching, and substitution; and the value proposition of these agents (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Apr 20;36[12]:1260-5). “The ASCO statement and guidelines are a great resource for really digging deeply into this area,” Dr. Thompson commented.
One concern surrounding uptake of biosimilars is the possibility of an actual increase in patient cost related to single sources and potentially differing reimbursement rates, which could diminish the financial benefit of these drugs. Technically, if biosimilars have similar efficacy and safety, and lower cost, they provide greater value than the reference drugs.
But there may still be reasons for not using a higher-value drug, according to Dr. Thompson. Clinicians may have lingering questions about efficacy and safety despite trial data, a situation that is being addressed in Europe by postmarketing pharmacovigilance. Other issues include delays in pathway implementation, the contracting of pharmacies with companies, and creation of new chemotherapy builds in electronic medical records. “These are all minor but potential barriers to as fast an implementation as possible,” he said.
A variety of issues are influencing whether and how clinicians incorporate biosimilars into cancer care, according to Michael A. Thompson, MD, PhD, medical director of the Early Phase Cancer Research Program and the Oncology Precision Medicine Program at Aurora Health Care in Milwaukee, Wis., who spoke at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“The issue of competition is highly relevant to biosimilars,” he said. Among important questions here: Is the oncology drug market a free market? Who owns the biosimilar companies? Does competition lower drug prices? And if biosimilars don’t decrease drug cost, why bother pursuing them? “We are seeing examples where the biosimilars have been developed, they appear to work, they appear safe, and really the proof will be how much is this pushing the market to decrease cost,” he noted.
Real-world data provide some insight into how biosimilars are being incorporated into oncology care. For example, in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, hematologists tend to use rituximab (Rituxan) biosimilars in later lines of therapy, in patients with a better performance status and fewer comorbidities, and in cases of indolent or incurable disease (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[suppl; abstr 112]). “So it appears that prescribers are acting tentatively to cautiously test the waters,” Dr. Thompson said.
Use will be influenced by clinical decision support and pathways, whether those are developed by institutions or insurers. These tools generally look at efficacy first, safety second, and cost third.
The relevance of patient choice (especially when physicians decreasingly have a choice) and perception of biosimilars may, or may not, be important, according to Dr. Thompson. In some areas of medicine, there is evidence of a nocebo effect: Patients perceive worsening of symptoms when they believe they are getting a nonbranded medication. But “I am not sure if this is valid in oncology, where we are already using many older chemotherapy drugs, the generics,” he said.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently published a statement on the use of biosimilars and related issues, such as safety and efficacy; naming and labeling; interchangeability, switching, and substitution; and the value proposition of these agents (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Apr 20;36[12]:1260-5). “The ASCO statement and guidelines are a great resource for really digging deeply into this area,” Dr. Thompson commented.
One concern surrounding uptake of biosimilars is the possibility of an actual increase in patient cost related to single sources and potentially differing reimbursement rates, which could diminish the financial benefit of these drugs. Technically, if biosimilars have similar efficacy and safety, and lower cost, they provide greater value than the reference drugs.
But there may still be reasons for not using a higher-value drug, according to Dr. Thompson. Clinicians may have lingering questions about efficacy and safety despite trial data, a situation that is being addressed in Europe by postmarketing pharmacovigilance. Other issues include delays in pathway implementation, the contracting of pharmacies with companies, and creation of new chemotherapy builds in electronic medical records. “These are all minor but potential barriers to as fast an implementation as possible,” he said.
CHICAGO – investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The findings further advance the promise of new agents that have no clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety when compared with their reference drugs but have substantially lower cost.
Bevacizumab biosimilar
The REFLECTIONS trial (NCT02364999) was a multinational, first-line, randomized, controlled trial among 719 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Patients were randomized to paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab (sourced from the European Union) or the candidate bevacizumab biosimilar PF-06439535 on a double-blind basis, followed by monotherapy with the same assigned agent.
The confidence interval for the risk difference fell within the equivalence margins set by European Union regulators (–13% and +13% for the 95% confidence interval). And the confidence interval for the risk ratio fell within the equivalence margins set by the Food and Drug Administration (0.73 and 1.37 for the 90% CI) and Japanese regulators (0.729 and 1.371 for the 95% CI).
Median progression-free survival was 9.0 months with the biosimilar and 7.7 months with bevacizumab (hazard ratio, 0.974; P = .814), and corresponding 1-year rates were 30.8% and 29.3%, Dr. Socinski reported. Median overall survival was 18.4 months and 17.8 months (HR, 1.001; P = .991), and corresponding 1-year rates were 66.4% and 68.8%.
Rates of grade 3 or higher hypertension, cardiac disorders, and bleeding did not differ significantly with the two agents. Patients also had similar rates of grade 3 or higher serious adverse events and of fatal (grade 5) serious adverse events (5.3% with the biosimilar and 5.9% with bevacizumab).
“Similarity between PF-06439535 and bevacizumab-EU was demonstrated for the primary efficacy endpoint of overall response rate. ... There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety profile shown in this trial, and similar pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity results were seen across treatment groups,” Dr. Socinski summarized.
“These results confirm similarity demonstrated in earlier analytical, nonclinical, and clinical studies of PF-06439535 with bevacizumab-EU,” he concluded.
Trastuzumab biosimilar
The phase 3 HERITAGE trial was a first-line, randomized, controlled trial that compared biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) with trastuzumab in combination with taxane chemotherapy and then as maintenance monotherapy in 458 patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer.
The 24-week results, previously reported (JAMA. 2017 Jan 3;317[1]:37-47), showed a similar overall response rate with each agent when combined with chemotherapy. Rates of various adverse events were essentially the same.
Presence of overall response at 24 weeks correlated with duration of progression-free survival at 48 weeks (biserial r = .752). “Additional patients achieved a response during the monotherapy portion of the treatment, which is intriguing and clearly emphasizes the importance of monotherapy, as well as the importance of having alternate agents at lower cost available,” Dr. Rugo commented.
Common adverse events through week 48 were much the same as those seen at week 24, with few additional ones occurring during monotherapy. “No new safety issues were observed, and in fact, toxicity during monotherapy was quite minor,” she noted. “One thing that’s interesting here is that there was more arthralgia during the first 24 weeks with trastuzumab-dkst than with trastuzumab, but in monotherapy, this fell down to a very low number and was identical between the two arms. Paclitaxel, which people stayed on for longer [with the biosimilar], may have been the cause of this.”
The 48-week rates of adverse events of special interest – respiratory events, cardiac disorders, and infusion-related adverse events – and of serious adverse events were similar for the two agents.
“We didn’t see any additional serious cardiac events during monotherapy,” Dr. Rugo noted. Mean and median left ventricular ejection fraction over 48 weeks were similar, as was the rate of LVEF, which dropped below 50% (4.0% with trastuzumab-dkst and 3.3% with trastuzumab). The incidences of antidrug antibody and neutralizing antibody were also comparably low in both groups.
“HERITAGE data, now at week 48, supports trastuzumab-dkst as a biosimilar to trastuzumab in all approved indications,” Dr. Rugo said. “Final overall survival will be assessed after 36 months or after 240 deaths, whichever occurs first. Based on current data, this is predicted to conclude by the end of 2018, with final overall survival data available next year.
“Trastuzumab-dkst provides an additional high-quality treatment option for patients with HER2+ breast cancers in any setting,” she added. “This study indeed shows that biosimilars offer the potential for worldwide cost savings and improved access to life-saving therapies. It’s sobering to think that the patients enrolled in this study would not otherwise have had access to continued trastuzumab therapy, and so many of them are still alive with longer follow-up.”
Filgrastim biosimilar
Investigators led by Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, head of the Breast Center and chair for Conservative Oncology in the department of ob&gyn at the University of Munich (Germany), compared efficacy of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), a biosimilar of filgrastim (recombinant granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, or G-CSF), in a trial population with that of a real-world population of women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Dr. Harbeck and her colleagues compared 217 women who had nonmetastatic breast cancer from the trial with 466 women who had any-stage breast cancer (42% metastatic) from the real-world cohort.
Results showed that the 6.2% rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in any cycle seen in the real-world population was much the same as the 5.1% rate seen previously in the trial population. Findings were similar for temperature exceeding 38.5˚ C in any cycle: 3.4% and 5.6%. The real-world population had a lower rate of severe neutropenia than did the trial population (19.5% vs. 74.3%) and higher rates of infection (15.5% vs. 7.9%) and hospitalization caused by febrile neutropenia (3.9% vs. 1.8%). Findings were essentially the same in cycle-level analyses.
The real-world cohort had many fewer any-severity safety events of special interest than did the trial cohort, such as musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders (20 vs. 261 events, respectively) and skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders (5 vs. 258 events). “Seeing these data, you have to keep in mind first of all that the patients received totally different chemotherapy. TAC chemotherapy has a lot of chemotherapy-associated side effects,” Dr. Harbeck noted. “The other thing is that MONITOR was a real-world database, and one could assume that there is some underreporting of events that are not directly correlated to the events that are of particular interest.”
Additional results available only from the trial showed that no patients developed binding or neutralizing antibodies against G-CSF.
“From a clinician’s point of view, it is very reassuring that we did not see any other safety signals in the real-world data than we saw in the randomized controlled trial and the efficacy was very, very similar,” Dr. Harbeck commented. “Having seen the discrepancies in the data … I think it’s important to have randomized controlled trials to assess and monitor adverse events for registration purposes and real-world evidence to reflect the daily clinical routine,” she concluded.
Dr. Socinski disclosed that his institution receives research funding from Pfizer, among other disclosures; the REFLECTIONS trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Rugo disclosed that she receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Mylan, among other disclosures; the HERITAGE trial was sponsored by Mylan. Dr. Harbeck disclosed that she has a consulting or advisory role with Sandoz, among other disclosures; the PIONEER and MONITOR-GCSF trials were both sponsored by Sandoz.
SOURCE: Socinski MA et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 109. Manikhas A et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 110. Harbeck N et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 111.
CHICAGO – investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The findings further advance the promise of new agents that have no clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety when compared with their reference drugs but have substantially lower cost.
Bevacizumab biosimilar
The REFLECTIONS trial (NCT02364999) was a multinational, first-line, randomized, controlled trial among 719 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Patients were randomized to paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab (sourced from the European Union) or the candidate bevacizumab biosimilar PF-06439535 on a double-blind basis, followed by monotherapy with the same assigned agent.
The confidence interval for the risk difference fell within the equivalence margins set by European Union regulators (–13% and +13% for the 95% confidence interval). And the confidence interval for the risk ratio fell within the equivalence margins set by the Food and Drug Administration (0.73 and 1.37 for the 90% CI) and Japanese regulators (0.729 and 1.371 for the 95% CI).
Median progression-free survival was 9.0 months with the biosimilar and 7.7 months with bevacizumab (hazard ratio, 0.974; P = .814), and corresponding 1-year rates were 30.8% and 29.3%, Dr. Socinski reported. Median overall survival was 18.4 months and 17.8 months (HR, 1.001; P = .991), and corresponding 1-year rates were 66.4% and 68.8%.
Rates of grade 3 or higher hypertension, cardiac disorders, and bleeding did not differ significantly with the two agents. Patients also had similar rates of grade 3 or higher serious adverse events and of fatal (grade 5) serious adverse events (5.3% with the biosimilar and 5.9% with bevacizumab).
“Similarity between PF-06439535 and bevacizumab-EU was demonstrated for the primary efficacy endpoint of overall response rate. ... There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety profile shown in this trial, and similar pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity results were seen across treatment groups,” Dr. Socinski summarized.
“These results confirm similarity demonstrated in earlier analytical, nonclinical, and clinical studies of PF-06439535 with bevacizumab-EU,” he concluded.
Trastuzumab biosimilar
The phase 3 HERITAGE trial was a first-line, randomized, controlled trial that compared biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) with trastuzumab in combination with taxane chemotherapy and then as maintenance monotherapy in 458 patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer.
The 24-week results, previously reported (JAMA. 2017 Jan 3;317[1]:37-47), showed a similar overall response rate with each agent when combined with chemotherapy. Rates of various adverse events were essentially the same.
Presence of overall response at 24 weeks correlated with duration of progression-free survival at 48 weeks (biserial r = .752). “Additional patients achieved a response during the monotherapy portion of the treatment, which is intriguing and clearly emphasizes the importance of monotherapy, as well as the importance of having alternate agents at lower cost available,” Dr. Rugo commented.
Common adverse events through week 48 were much the same as those seen at week 24, with few additional ones occurring during monotherapy. “No new safety issues were observed, and in fact, toxicity during monotherapy was quite minor,” she noted. “One thing that’s interesting here is that there was more arthralgia during the first 24 weeks with trastuzumab-dkst than with trastuzumab, but in monotherapy, this fell down to a very low number and was identical between the two arms. Paclitaxel, which people stayed on for longer [with the biosimilar], may have been the cause of this.”
The 48-week rates of adverse events of special interest – respiratory events, cardiac disorders, and infusion-related adverse events – and of serious adverse events were similar for the two agents.
“We didn’t see any additional serious cardiac events during monotherapy,” Dr. Rugo noted. Mean and median left ventricular ejection fraction over 48 weeks were similar, as was the rate of LVEF, which dropped below 50% (4.0% with trastuzumab-dkst and 3.3% with trastuzumab). The incidences of antidrug antibody and neutralizing antibody were also comparably low in both groups.
“HERITAGE data, now at week 48, supports trastuzumab-dkst as a biosimilar to trastuzumab in all approved indications,” Dr. Rugo said. “Final overall survival will be assessed after 36 months or after 240 deaths, whichever occurs first. Based on current data, this is predicted to conclude by the end of 2018, with final overall survival data available next year.
“Trastuzumab-dkst provides an additional high-quality treatment option for patients with HER2+ breast cancers in any setting,” she added. “This study indeed shows that biosimilars offer the potential for worldwide cost savings and improved access to life-saving therapies. It’s sobering to think that the patients enrolled in this study would not otherwise have had access to continued trastuzumab therapy, and so many of them are still alive with longer follow-up.”
Filgrastim biosimilar
Investigators led by Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, head of the Breast Center and chair for Conservative Oncology in the department of ob&gyn at the University of Munich (Germany), compared efficacy of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), a biosimilar of filgrastim (recombinant granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, or G-CSF), in a trial population with that of a real-world population of women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Dr. Harbeck and her colleagues compared 217 women who had nonmetastatic breast cancer from the trial with 466 women who had any-stage breast cancer (42% metastatic) from the real-world cohort.
Results showed that the 6.2% rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in any cycle seen in the real-world population was much the same as the 5.1% rate seen previously in the trial population. Findings were similar for temperature exceeding 38.5˚ C in any cycle: 3.4% and 5.6%. The real-world population had a lower rate of severe neutropenia than did the trial population (19.5% vs. 74.3%) and higher rates of infection (15.5% vs. 7.9%) and hospitalization caused by febrile neutropenia (3.9% vs. 1.8%). Findings were essentially the same in cycle-level analyses.
The real-world cohort had many fewer any-severity safety events of special interest than did the trial cohort, such as musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders (20 vs. 261 events, respectively) and skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders (5 vs. 258 events). “Seeing these data, you have to keep in mind first of all that the patients received totally different chemotherapy. TAC chemotherapy has a lot of chemotherapy-associated side effects,” Dr. Harbeck noted. “The other thing is that MONITOR was a real-world database, and one could assume that there is some underreporting of events that are not directly correlated to the events that are of particular interest.”
Additional results available only from the trial showed that no patients developed binding or neutralizing antibodies against G-CSF.
“From a clinician’s point of view, it is very reassuring that we did not see any other safety signals in the real-world data than we saw in the randomized controlled trial and the efficacy was very, very similar,” Dr. Harbeck commented. “Having seen the discrepancies in the data … I think it’s important to have randomized controlled trials to assess and monitor adverse events for registration purposes and real-world evidence to reflect the daily clinical routine,” she concluded.
Dr. Socinski disclosed that his institution receives research funding from Pfizer, among other disclosures; the REFLECTIONS trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Rugo disclosed that she receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Mylan, among other disclosures; the HERITAGE trial was sponsored by Mylan. Dr. Harbeck disclosed that she has a consulting or advisory role with Sandoz, among other disclosures; the PIONEER and MONITOR-GCSF trials were both sponsored by Sandoz.
SOURCE: Socinski MA et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 109. Manikhas A et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 110. Harbeck N et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 111.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2018
Key clinical point: Biosimilars for bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and filgrastim showed similar efficacy and safety.
Major finding: In patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, the overall response rate was 45.3% with a candidate bevacizumab biosimilar and 44.6% with bevacizumab. In patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer, 48-week median progression-free survival was 11.1 months for both trastuzumab-dkst and trastuzumab. The rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia among breast cancer patients given a biosimilar for filgrastim was 5.1% in a trial population and 6.2% in a real-world population.
Study details: Randomized, controlled trials of first-line therapy among 719 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC (REFLECTIONS trial) and among 458 patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer (HERITAGE trial). Comparison of outcomes in a randomized, controlled trial among 217 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer (PIONEER trial) and a real-world cohort study of 466 patients with any-stage breast cancer (MONITOR-GCSF).
Disclosures: Dr. Socinski disclosed that his institution receives research funding from Pfizer, among other disclosures; the REFLECTIONS trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Rugo disclosed that she receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Mylan, among other disclosures; the HERITAGE trial was sponsored by Mylan. Dr. Harbeck disclosed that she has a consulting or advisory role with Sandoz, among other disclosures; the PIONEER and MONITOR-GCSF trials were sponsored by Sandoz.
Source: Socinski MA et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 109. Manikhas A et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 110. Harbeck N et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 111.
Trastuzumab biosimilar is equivalent on central review
CHICAGO – according to a new analysis of the phase 3 LILAC trial.
The 725 women in the multinational trial received run-in, anthracycline-based chemotherapy and were then evenly randomized to receive ABP 980 or trastuzumab, each with paclitaxel, followed by surgery.
The difference in pathologic complete response (pCR) rate assessed by local pathologists has been previously reported (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jun 4. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30241-9); those findings established non-inferiority of the biosimilar but left the matter of non-superiority inconclusive. However, in the new analysis, reported in a poster session at the ASCO Annual Meeting, the difference in pCR rate when instead assessed by a central pathologist fell within all bounds for equivalence.
“This is part of the totality of evidence in the course of approval of ABP 980,” lead author Hans-Christian Kolberg, MD, head of the department of gynecology and obstetrics of the Breast Cancer Center of the Gynecologic Cancer Center at Marien Hospital Bottrop (Germany), commented in an interview.
The new data prompted European regulators to authorize marketing of the biosimilar (branded as Kanjinti) for HER2+ early breast cancer and metastatic breast cancer, as well as HER2+ metastatic gastric cancer. (In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration recently rejected the application for ABP 980 market approval.)
“Breast cancer therapy is getting more and more expensive, and we somehow have to raise the money to pay for it. If we have a chance to make an antibody that is 20%-30% cheaper, which is what we hope it will be in Europe, we have that money for other things,” Dr. Kolberg said, reflecting on the bigger picture.
“I am also a visiting professor at a university in China, where patients who are HER2+ don’t get Herceptin because they can’t afford it. We always have to remember that in Europe and the U.S., we are kind of living on an island. If you look at Africa, Asia, and South America, making things affordable is important,” he added. “I hope and believe that this is just the beginning of the price fight. I hope that the biosimilar companies really will fight to see who will have the lowest price because that will be good for the patients. The lower the price, the better for the patients.”
Study details
Research leading up to the LILAC trial established that ABP 980 had analytic characteristics, nonclinical attributes, and pharmacokinetics similar to those of trastuzumab. The trial, conducted in 97 centers in 20 countries in western Europe, eastern Europe, and other world regions, assessed clinical similarity.
“I think central review was done in the study because we had so many centers all over the world that it was questionable as to how we could monitor the quality in dozens and dozens of pathology labs,” Dr. Kolberg explained. “So the idea was that we make it a little bit more difficult, a little bit more expensive, but more reliable if we use one pathologist.”
The central review was not without logistical issues, he acknowledged. In particular, it was challenging to ensure that all centers – including some doing so for the first time – followed a standardized procedure for sending tissue to the central lab.
The previously reported locally assessed pCR rates in breast tissue and axillary lymph nodes were 48.0% with ABP 980 and 40.5% with trastuzumab. The risk difference was 7.3% (90% confidence interval, 1.2%-13.4%) and the risk ratio was 1.188 (90% CI, 1.033-1.366), with the upper bounds of the confidence intervals exceeding the predefined equivalence margins of 13% and 1.318, respectively.
The centrally assessed pCR rates were 47.8% with ABP 980 and 41.8% with trastuzumab. The risk difference was 5.8% (90% CI, –0.5% to 12.0%), and the risk ratio was 1.14 (90% CI, 0.993 to 1.312), with the upper bounds of the confidence intervals now falling within the equivalence margins.
“This is the first study ever that used central pathology review for pCR in a neoadjuvant breast cancer study. We were really skeptical at the beginning as to whether that would work because we had a lot of centers all over the world, from Russia, Brazil, the U.S., Germany,” Dr. Kolberg commented.
“It worked, and we were very lucky that it worked because in the local review, we did not reach our biosimilar margins, our equivalence margins. In the central review, we were well within the margins,” he said. “So if we had not in the beginning planned a coprimary endpoint with local and central pathology review, the medication would never have been approved.”
Dr. Kolberg disclosed that he is a consultant for Amgen, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Genomic Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SurgVision, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theraclion. The trial was sponsored by Amgen.
SOURCE: Kolberg HC et al. ASCO Annual Meeting, Abstract 583.
CHICAGO – according to a new analysis of the phase 3 LILAC trial.
The 725 women in the multinational trial received run-in, anthracycline-based chemotherapy and were then evenly randomized to receive ABP 980 or trastuzumab, each with paclitaxel, followed by surgery.
The difference in pathologic complete response (pCR) rate assessed by local pathologists has been previously reported (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jun 4. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30241-9); those findings established non-inferiority of the biosimilar but left the matter of non-superiority inconclusive. However, in the new analysis, reported in a poster session at the ASCO Annual Meeting, the difference in pCR rate when instead assessed by a central pathologist fell within all bounds for equivalence.
“This is part of the totality of evidence in the course of approval of ABP 980,” lead author Hans-Christian Kolberg, MD, head of the department of gynecology and obstetrics of the Breast Cancer Center of the Gynecologic Cancer Center at Marien Hospital Bottrop (Germany), commented in an interview.
The new data prompted European regulators to authorize marketing of the biosimilar (branded as Kanjinti) for HER2+ early breast cancer and metastatic breast cancer, as well as HER2+ metastatic gastric cancer. (In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration recently rejected the application for ABP 980 market approval.)
“Breast cancer therapy is getting more and more expensive, and we somehow have to raise the money to pay for it. If we have a chance to make an antibody that is 20%-30% cheaper, which is what we hope it will be in Europe, we have that money for other things,” Dr. Kolberg said, reflecting on the bigger picture.
“I am also a visiting professor at a university in China, where patients who are HER2+ don’t get Herceptin because they can’t afford it. We always have to remember that in Europe and the U.S., we are kind of living on an island. If you look at Africa, Asia, and South America, making things affordable is important,” he added. “I hope and believe that this is just the beginning of the price fight. I hope that the biosimilar companies really will fight to see who will have the lowest price because that will be good for the patients. The lower the price, the better for the patients.”
Study details
Research leading up to the LILAC trial established that ABP 980 had analytic characteristics, nonclinical attributes, and pharmacokinetics similar to those of trastuzumab. The trial, conducted in 97 centers in 20 countries in western Europe, eastern Europe, and other world regions, assessed clinical similarity.
“I think central review was done in the study because we had so many centers all over the world that it was questionable as to how we could monitor the quality in dozens and dozens of pathology labs,” Dr. Kolberg explained. “So the idea was that we make it a little bit more difficult, a little bit more expensive, but more reliable if we use one pathologist.”
The central review was not without logistical issues, he acknowledged. In particular, it was challenging to ensure that all centers – including some doing so for the first time – followed a standardized procedure for sending tissue to the central lab.
The previously reported locally assessed pCR rates in breast tissue and axillary lymph nodes were 48.0% with ABP 980 and 40.5% with trastuzumab. The risk difference was 7.3% (90% confidence interval, 1.2%-13.4%) and the risk ratio was 1.188 (90% CI, 1.033-1.366), with the upper bounds of the confidence intervals exceeding the predefined equivalence margins of 13% and 1.318, respectively.
The centrally assessed pCR rates were 47.8% with ABP 980 and 41.8% with trastuzumab. The risk difference was 5.8% (90% CI, –0.5% to 12.0%), and the risk ratio was 1.14 (90% CI, 0.993 to 1.312), with the upper bounds of the confidence intervals now falling within the equivalence margins.
“This is the first study ever that used central pathology review for pCR in a neoadjuvant breast cancer study. We were really skeptical at the beginning as to whether that would work because we had a lot of centers all over the world, from Russia, Brazil, the U.S., Germany,” Dr. Kolberg commented.
“It worked, and we were very lucky that it worked because in the local review, we did not reach our biosimilar margins, our equivalence margins. In the central review, we were well within the margins,” he said. “So if we had not in the beginning planned a coprimary endpoint with local and central pathology review, the medication would never have been approved.”
Dr. Kolberg disclosed that he is a consultant for Amgen, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Genomic Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SurgVision, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theraclion. The trial was sponsored by Amgen.
SOURCE: Kolberg HC et al. ASCO Annual Meeting, Abstract 583.
CHICAGO – according to a new analysis of the phase 3 LILAC trial.
The 725 women in the multinational trial received run-in, anthracycline-based chemotherapy and were then evenly randomized to receive ABP 980 or trastuzumab, each with paclitaxel, followed by surgery.
The difference in pathologic complete response (pCR) rate assessed by local pathologists has been previously reported (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jun 4. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30241-9); those findings established non-inferiority of the biosimilar but left the matter of non-superiority inconclusive. However, in the new analysis, reported in a poster session at the ASCO Annual Meeting, the difference in pCR rate when instead assessed by a central pathologist fell within all bounds for equivalence.
“This is part of the totality of evidence in the course of approval of ABP 980,” lead author Hans-Christian Kolberg, MD, head of the department of gynecology and obstetrics of the Breast Cancer Center of the Gynecologic Cancer Center at Marien Hospital Bottrop (Germany), commented in an interview.
The new data prompted European regulators to authorize marketing of the biosimilar (branded as Kanjinti) for HER2+ early breast cancer and metastatic breast cancer, as well as HER2+ metastatic gastric cancer. (In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration recently rejected the application for ABP 980 market approval.)
“Breast cancer therapy is getting more and more expensive, and we somehow have to raise the money to pay for it. If we have a chance to make an antibody that is 20%-30% cheaper, which is what we hope it will be in Europe, we have that money for other things,” Dr. Kolberg said, reflecting on the bigger picture.
“I am also a visiting professor at a university in China, where patients who are HER2+ don’t get Herceptin because they can’t afford it. We always have to remember that in Europe and the U.S., we are kind of living on an island. If you look at Africa, Asia, and South America, making things affordable is important,” he added. “I hope and believe that this is just the beginning of the price fight. I hope that the biosimilar companies really will fight to see who will have the lowest price because that will be good for the patients. The lower the price, the better for the patients.”
Study details
Research leading up to the LILAC trial established that ABP 980 had analytic characteristics, nonclinical attributes, and pharmacokinetics similar to those of trastuzumab. The trial, conducted in 97 centers in 20 countries in western Europe, eastern Europe, and other world regions, assessed clinical similarity.
“I think central review was done in the study because we had so many centers all over the world that it was questionable as to how we could monitor the quality in dozens and dozens of pathology labs,” Dr. Kolberg explained. “So the idea was that we make it a little bit more difficult, a little bit more expensive, but more reliable if we use one pathologist.”
The central review was not without logistical issues, he acknowledged. In particular, it was challenging to ensure that all centers – including some doing so for the first time – followed a standardized procedure for sending tissue to the central lab.
The previously reported locally assessed pCR rates in breast tissue and axillary lymph nodes were 48.0% with ABP 980 and 40.5% with trastuzumab. The risk difference was 7.3% (90% confidence interval, 1.2%-13.4%) and the risk ratio was 1.188 (90% CI, 1.033-1.366), with the upper bounds of the confidence intervals exceeding the predefined equivalence margins of 13% and 1.318, respectively.
The centrally assessed pCR rates were 47.8% with ABP 980 and 41.8% with trastuzumab. The risk difference was 5.8% (90% CI, –0.5% to 12.0%), and the risk ratio was 1.14 (90% CI, 0.993 to 1.312), with the upper bounds of the confidence intervals now falling within the equivalence margins.
“This is the first study ever that used central pathology review for pCR in a neoadjuvant breast cancer study. We were really skeptical at the beginning as to whether that would work because we had a lot of centers all over the world, from Russia, Brazil, the U.S., Germany,” Dr. Kolberg commented.
“It worked, and we were very lucky that it worked because in the local review, we did not reach our biosimilar margins, our equivalence margins. In the central review, we were well within the margins,” he said. “So if we had not in the beginning planned a coprimary endpoint with local and central pathology review, the medication would never have been approved.”
Dr. Kolberg disclosed that he is a consultant for Amgen, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Genomic Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SurgVision, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theraclion. The trial was sponsored by Amgen.
SOURCE: Kolberg HC et al. ASCO Annual Meeting, Abstract 583.
REPORTING FROM THE ASCO ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point: Central review determined that ABP 980 was neither inferior nor superior to trastuzumab in breast cancer patients.
Major finding: The centrally determined pCR rates were 47.8% with ABP 980 and 41.8% with trastuzumab, with bounds of the confidence intervals for risk difference and for risk ratio falling within the predefined equivalence margins.
Study details: An analysis of a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of neoadjuvant (and adjuvant) therapy among 725 patients with HER2+ early breast cancer (LILAC trial).
Disclosures: Dr. Kolberg disclosed that he is a consultant for Amgen, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Genomic Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SurgVision, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theraclion. The trial was sponsored by Amgen.
Source: Kolberg HC et al. ASCO Annual Meeting, Abstract 583.
Youth with rhabdomyosarcoma see better survival with maintenance chemo
CHICAGO – , finds a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG).
Rhabdomyosarcoma is a rare but very aggressive tumor, lead study author Gianni Bisogno, MD, PhD, a professor at the University Hospital of Padova, Italy, and chair of the EpSSG, noted in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the findings were reported. Among pediatric patients who achieve complete response to standard therapy, “we know that after 1 or 2 years, one-third of these children relapse, and most of them die,” he said.
The EpSSG trial, which took about 10 years to conduct, enrolled 371 patients aged 0-21 years with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma who had had a complete response to standard intensive therapy. They were randomized evenly to stop treatment or to receive 6 months of maintenance treatment consisting of low-dose vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide.
Results reported in the meeting’s plenary session showed that giving maintenance chemotherapy improved the 5-year overall survival rate by an absolute 12.8%, which translated to a near halving of the risk of death. And the maintenance regimen used was generally well tolerated.
“At the end of this long, not-easy study, we concluded that maintenance chemotherapy is an effective and well tolerated treatment for children with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma,” Dr. Bisogno said.
There are three possibilities for its efficacy, he speculated. “It may be the duration, the type of drugs used, or the metronomic approach. Maybe altogether, these three different actions have a benefit to increase survival.
“Our group has decided this is the new standard treatment for patients. At least in Europe, we give standard intensive therapy and then we continue with 6 more months of low-dose chemotherapy,” Dr. Bisogno concluded. “We think that this approach – a new way of using old drugs – can be of interest also for other pediatric tumors.”
The trial is noteworthy in that it shows “how to successfully conduct large and important trials in rare diseases,” said ASCO Expert Warren Chow, MD.
The standard therapy for rhabdomyosarcomas is somewhat different in the United States, typically a regimen containing vincristine, actinomycin D, cyclophosphamide, and (more recently) irinotecan, he noted. “We have not been traditionally using maintenance chemo for any of the pediatric sarcomas, so this is a paradigm shift. These results will need to be tested with U.S.-based protocols before becoming standard of care in the United States. Also, we will need to determine if these results are applicable to patients older than 21 years of age who are considered high risk based solely on their age.
“Even with these caveats, this is the first significant treatment advance in this rare cancer in more than 30 years,” concluded Dr. Chow, a medical oncologist and clinical professor at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. “No doubt, this trial was a home run.”
Study details
Patients enrolled in the EpSSG trial had had a complete response to the standard intensive therapy used in Europe: high-dose chemotherapy (ifosfamide, vincristine, and actinomycin D, with or without doxorubicin), radiation therapy, and surgery.
The maintenance chemotherapy consisted of a combination of low-dose intravenous vinorelbine given weekly and oral cyclophosphamide given daily. The 6-month duration was somewhat arbitrary, according to Dr. Bisogno. “We had to start somewhere. So when we started, we decided to use 6 months because there was some evidence in the past for regimens that long. In our next European trial, we are going to test different kinds and durations of maintenance because this is very important.”
The maintenance regimen was well tolerated compared with the regimen given during standard intensive therapy, with, for example, lower rates of grade 3 and 4 anemia (8.9% vs. 48.9%), neutropenia (80.6% vs. 91.6%), and thrombocytopenia (0.6% vs. 26.0%), which translated to less need for transfusions, and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 infection (29.4% vs. 56.4%), Dr. Bisogno reported. There were no cases of grade 3 or 4 cardiac, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, or renal toxicity.
Relative to peers who stopped treatment after standard intensive therapy, patients who received maintenance treatment tended to have better disease-free survival (77.6% vs. 69.8%; hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0613) and had significantly better overall survival (86.5% vs. 73.7%; hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .0111).
Dr. Bisogno disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Clinigen Group, and receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Jazz Pharmaceuticals. The study received funding from Fondazione Città della Speranza, Italy.
SOURCE: Bisogno et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA2.
CHICAGO – , finds a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG).
Rhabdomyosarcoma is a rare but very aggressive tumor, lead study author Gianni Bisogno, MD, PhD, a professor at the University Hospital of Padova, Italy, and chair of the EpSSG, noted in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the findings were reported. Among pediatric patients who achieve complete response to standard therapy, “we know that after 1 or 2 years, one-third of these children relapse, and most of them die,” he said.
The EpSSG trial, which took about 10 years to conduct, enrolled 371 patients aged 0-21 years with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma who had had a complete response to standard intensive therapy. They were randomized evenly to stop treatment or to receive 6 months of maintenance treatment consisting of low-dose vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide.
Results reported in the meeting’s plenary session showed that giving maintenance chemotherapy improved the 5-year overall survival rate by an absolute 12.8%, which translated to a near halving of the risk of death. And the maintenance regimen used was generally well tolerated.
“At the end of this long, not-easy study, we concluded that maintenance chemotherapy is an effective and well tolerated treatment for children with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma,” Dr. Bisogno said.
There are three possibilities for its efficacy, he speculated. “It may be the duration, the type of drugs used, or the metronomic approach. Maybe altogether, these three different actions have a benefit to increase survival.
“Our group has decided this is the new standard treatment for patients. At least in Europe, we give standard intensive therapy and then we continue with 6 more months of low-dose chemotherapy,” Dr. Bisogno concluded. “We think that this approach – a new way of using old drugs – can be of interest also for other pediatric tumors.”
The trial is noteworthy in that it shows “how to successfully conduct large and important trials in rare diseases,” said ASCO Expert Warren Chow, MD.
The standard therapy for rhabdomyosarcomas is somewhat different in the United States, typically a regimen containing vincristine, actinomycin D, cyclophosphamide, and (more recently) irinotecan, he noted. “We have not been traditionally using maintenance chemo for any of the pediatric sarcomas, so this is a paradigm shift. These results will need to be tested with U.S.-based protocols before becoming standard of care in the United States. Also, we will need to determine if these results are applicable to patients older than 21 years of age who are considered high risk based solely on their age.
“Even with these caveats, this is the first significant treatment advance in this rare cancer in more than 30 years,” concluded Dr. Chow, a medical oncologist and clinical professor at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. “No doubt, this trial was a home run.”
Study details
Patients enrolled in the EpSSG trial had had a complete response to the standard intensive therapy used in Europe: high-dose chemotherapy (ifosfamide, vincristine, and actinomycin D, with or without doxorubicin), radiation therapy, and surgery.
The maintenance chemotherapy consisted of a combination of low-dose intravenous vinorelbine given weekly and oral cyclophosphamide given daily. The 6-month duration was somewhat arbitrary, according to Dr. Bisogno. “We had to start somewhere. So when we started, we decided to use 6 months because there was some evidence in the past for regimens that long. In our next European trial, we are going to test different kinds and durations of maintenance because this is very important.”
The maintenance regimen was well tolerated compared with the regimen given during standard intensive therapy, with, for example, lower rates of grade 3 and 4 anemia (8.9% vs. 48.9%), neutropenia (80.6% vs. 91.6%), and thrombocytopenia (0.6% vs. 26.0%), which translated to less need for transfusions, and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 infection (29.4% vs. 56.4%), Dr. Bisogno reported. There were no cases of grade 3 or 4 cardiac, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, or renal toxicity.
Relative to peers who stopped treatment after standard intensive therapy, patients who received maintenance treatment tended to have better disease-free survival (77.6% vs. 69.8%; hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0613) and had significantly better overall survival (86.5% vs. 73.7%; hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .0111).
Dr. Bisogno disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Clinigen Group, and receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Jazz Pharmaceuticals. The study received funding from Fondazione Città della Speranza, Italy.
SOURCE: Bisogno et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA2.
CHICAGO – , finds a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG).
Rhabdomyosarcoma is a rare but very aggressive tumor, lead study author Gianni Bisogno, MD, PhD, a professor at the University Hospital of Padova, Italy, and chair of the EpSSG, noted in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the findings were reported. Among pediatric patients who achieve complete response to standard therapy, “we know that after 1 or 2 years, one-third of these children relapse, and most of them die,” he said.
The EpSSG trial, which took about 10 years to conduct, enrolled 371 patients aged 0-21 years with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma who had had a complete response to standard intensive therapy. They were randomized evenly to stop treatment or to receive 6 months of maintenance treatment consisting of low-dose vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide.
Results reported in the meeting’s plenary session showed that giving maintenance chemotherapy improved the 5-year overall survival rate by an absolute 12.8%, which translated to a near halving of the risk of death. And the maintenance regimen used was generally well tolerated.
“At the end of this long, not-easy study, we concluded that maintenance chemotherapy is an effective and well tolerated treatment for children with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma,” Dr. Bisogno said.
There are three possibilities for its efficacy, he speculated. “It may be the duration, the type of drugs used, or the metronomic approach. Maybe altogether, these three different actions have a benefit to increase survival.
“Our group has decided this is the new standard treatment for patients. At least in Europe, we give standard intensive therapy and then we continue with 6 more months of low-dose chemotherapy,” Dr. Bisogno concluded. “We think that this approach – a new way of using old drugs – can be of interest also for other pediatric tumors.”
The trial is noteworthy in that it shows “how to successfully conduct large and important trials in rare diseases,” said ASCO Expert Warren Chow, MD.
The standard therapy for rhabdomyosarcomas is somewhat different in the United States, typically a regimen containing vincristine, actinomycin D, cyclophosphamide, and (more recently) irinotecan, he noted. “We have not been traditionally using maintenance chemo for any of the pediatric sarcomas, so this is a paradigm shift. These results will need to be tested with U.S.-based protocols before becoming standard of care in the United States. Also, we will need to determine if these results are applicable to patients older than 21 years of age who are considered high risk based solely on their age.
“Even with these caveats, this is the first significant treatment advance in this rare cancer in more than 30 years,” concluded Dr. Chow, a medical oncologist and clinical professor at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. “No doubt, this trial was a home run.”
Study details
Patients enrolled in the EpSSG trial had had a complete response to the standard intensive therapy used in Europe: high-dose chemotherapy (ifosfamide, vincristine, and actinomycin D, with or without doxorubicin), radiation therapy, and surgery.
The maintenance chemotherapy consisted of a combination of low-dose intravenous vinorelbine given weekly and oral cyclophosphamide given daily. The 6-month duration was somewhat arbitrary, according to Dr. Bisogno. “We had to start somewhere. So when we started, we decided to use 6 months because there was some evidence in the past for regimens that long. In our next European trial, we are going to test different kinds and durations of maintenance because this is very important.”
The maintenance regimen was well tolerated compared with the regimen given during standard intensive therapy, with, for example, lower rates of grade 3 and 4 anemia (8.9% vs. 48.9%), neutropenia (80.6% vs. 91.6%), and thrombocytopenia (0.6% vs. 26.0%), which translated to less need for transfusions, and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 infection (29.4% vs. 56.4%), Dr. Bisogno reported. There were no cases of grade 3 or 4 cardiac, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, or renal toxicity.
Relative to peers who stopped treatment after standard intensive therapy, patients who received maintenance treatment tended to have better disease-free survival (77.6% vs. 69.8%; hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0613) and had significantly better overall survival (86.5% vs. 73.7%; hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .0111).
Dr. Bisogno disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Clinigen Group, and receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Jazz Pharmaceuticals. The study received funding from Fondazione Città della Speranza, Italy.
SOURCE: Bisogno et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA2.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2018
Key clinical point: Six months of maintenance chemotherapy improves survival in youth with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma.
Major finding: Compared with counterparts not receiving any additional treatment, patients given maintenance low-dose vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide had better 5-year overall survival (86.5% vs. 73.7%; hazard ratio, 0.52).
Study details: A phase 3 randomized controlled trial among 371 patients aged 0-21 years with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma who had had a complete response to standard intensive therapy.
Disclosures: Dr. Bisogno disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Clinigen Group, and receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Jazz Pharmaceuticals. The study received funding from Fondazione Città della Speranza, Italy.
Source: Bisogno et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract LBA2.
New cell-free DNA assays hold promise for lung cancer screening
CHICAGO – according to the first interim report from a substudy of the large, ongoing Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA).
“Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT is known to improve outcomes. And yet, CT-based lung cancer screening is not widely adopted,” said lead study author Geoffrey R. Oxnard, MD, associate professor of medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study was reported. “Criticisms of low-dose CT include the risk of false positives and overdiagnosis. We proposed to investigate an untapped opportunity for cancer detection, which is using cell-free DNA.”
Main substudy results among 164 patients with lung cancer and 923 comparable individuals without known cancer showed that at a specificity of 98%, the three assays evaluated detected up to 51% of early-stage (stage I-IIIA) lung cancers and up to 91% of late-stage (stage IIIB-IV) lung cancers. And among the healthy participants with false-positive results for lung cancer, several were ultimately found to have cancers of other types.
“This first interim analysis of the CCGA study demonstrates that comprehensive sequencing of the plasma cell-free DNA can generate high-quality data across the entire genome, and it permits noninvasive cancer detection. The assays can detect lung cancer across stages, across histologies, across populations,” Dr. Oxnard said.
“Together, these results support the promise of using cell-free, DNA-based assays to develop an early cancer detection test with high specificity. Further assay and clinical development is ongoing: There is a separate prospective trial enrolling, the STRIVE study, and there remain thousands of patients still on this CCGA study to be analyzed for further optimization and focusing of this assay towards an eventual cancer diagnostic.”
The cohort studied was not a screening population, so the assays’ performance cannot be compared with that of low-dose CT at this point, he said. But the hypothesis going forward is that the assays will have comparatively higher specificity, sparing some patients an unnecessary diagnostic work-up.
The population in which the final blood test might be used will depend on its diagnostic performance once the assays are fully refined and clinic ready, which will take some time, according to Dr. Oxnard. However, “2 years ago, this was a pipe dream. Two years ago, it was completely just a brainstorm that had no data to support it, and I didn’t believe that this could be done. Today, we actually have data to show that this is really feasible to find early-stage cancer in the blood. So this is a huge step forward and actually means that this is going to be a reality.”
“This is an important first step towards an easier way to detect lung cancer at earlier and hopefully more curable stages,” agreed ASCO Expert David Graham, MD, who is also medical director at the Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C. “If the promise of this report holds, we could easily see a day when a person could be screened for lung cancer and possibly other cancers simply by going into their regular doctor’s office for a blood draw.”
Study details
The CCGA study has enrolled more than 12,000 of its planned 15,000 participants (70% with cancer, 30% without) across 142 U.S. and Canadian sites.
The substudy reported had a development cohort (118 patients with lung cancer, 561 individuals without cancer) and a validation cohort (46 patients with lung cancer, 362 individuals without cancer), with the lung cancer and noncancer groups matched on age, race, and body mass index. “Having a comparable control cohort is very important in developing such a diagnostic for accurate analysis of the potential false-positive rate,” Dr. Oxnard noted.
Three prototype assays were tested: A targeted sequencing assay entailing very deep sequencing across 507 genes for somatic mutations such as single-nucleotide variants and small insertions and/or deletions; a novel, whole-genome sequencing assay to detect somatic gene copy number changes; and a novel, whole-genome methylation sequencing assay to detect abnormal epigenetic changes.
Sequencing was also performed on DNA from white blood cells. “That’s very important. The white blood cells are rich with mutations that can pollute the DNA and make you think that there is cancer present in the cell-free DNA,” Dr. Oxnard explained. “You screen out this interference from the white blood cells and other biologic noise, and you are left with the final features: mutations, copy number variations, and methylation signatures that then go into the final assays being studied.”
Results showed that when assay specificity was 98%, sensitivity for early-stage (stage I-IIIA) lung cancer ranged from 38% to 51%, and sensitivity for late-stage (stage IIIB-IV) lung cancer ranged from 87% to 91%.
Among five presumed cancer-free individuals having positive results on all three assays, two subsequently received a cancer diagnosis (one with stage III ovarian cancer, one with stage II endometrial cancer).
An additional 19 cancer types across all stages were tested in the CCGA substudy. Early results for breast, gastrointestinal, gynecologic, blood, and other cancers were also reported at the meeting (abstracts 536, 12021, and 12003).
Dr. Oxnard disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Inivata, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Loxo Oncology, Ignyta, DropWorks, and GRAIL, and that he has patents, royalties, and/or other intellectual property with Chugai Pharmaceutical, Bio-Rad, Sysmex, and Guardant Health. The study was funded by GRAIL.
SOURCE: Oxnard GR et al. ASCO 2018. Abstract LBA8501.
CHICAGO – according to the first interim report from a substudy of the large, ongoing Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA).
“Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT is known to improve outcomes. And yet, CT-based lung cancer screening is not widely adopted,” said lead study author Geoffrey R. Oxnard, MD, associate professor of medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study was reported. “Criticisms of low-dose CT include the risk of false positives and overdiagnosis. We proposed to investigate an untapped opportunity for cancer detection, which is using cell-free DNA.”
Main substudy results among 164 patients with lung cancer and 923 comparable individuals without known cancer showed that at a specificity of 98%, the three assays evaluated detected up to 51% of early-stage (stage I-IIIA) lung cancers and up to 91% of late-stage (stage IIIB-IV) lung cancers. And among the healthy participants with false-positive results for lung cancer, several were ultimately found to have cancers of other types.
“This first interim analysis of the CCGA study demonstrates that comprehensive sequencing of the plasma cell-free DNA can generate high-quality data across the entire genome, and it permits noninvasive cancer detection. The assays can detect lung cancer across stages, across histologies, across populations,” Dr. Oxnard said.
“Together, these results support the promise of using cell-free, DNA-based assays to develop an early cancer detection test with high specificity. Further assay and clinical development is ongoing: There is a separate prospective trial enrolling, the STRIVE study, and there remain thousands of patients still on this CCGA study to be analyzed for further optimization and focusing of this assay towards an eventual cancer diagnostic.”
The cohort studied was not a screening population, so the assays’ performance cannot be compared with that of low-dose CT at this point, he said. But the hypothesis going forward is that the assays will have comparatively higher specificity, sparing some patients an unnecessary diagnostic work-up.
The population in which the final blood test might be used will depend on its diagnostic performance once the assays are fully refined and clinic ready, which will take some time, according to Dr. Oxnard. However, “2 years ago, this was a pipe dream. Two years ago, it was completely just a brainstorm that had no data to support it, and I didn’t believe that this could be done. Today, we actually have data to show that this is really feasible to find early-stage cancer in the blood. So this is a huge step forward and actually means that this is going to be a reality.”
“This is an important first step towards an easier way to detect lung cancer at earlier and hopefully more curable stages,” agreed ASCO Expert David Graham, MD, who is also medical director at the Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C. “If the promise of this report holds, we could easily see a day when a person could be screened for lung cancer and possibly other cancers simply by going into their regular doctor’s office for a blood draw.”
Study details
The CCGA study has enrolled more than 12,000 of its planned 15,000 participants (70% with cancer, 30% without) across 142 U.S. and Canadian sites.
The substudy reported had a development cohort (118 patients with lung cancer, 561 individuals without cancer) and a validation cohort (46 patients with lung cancer, 362 individuals without cancer), with the lung cancer and noncancer groups matched on age, race, and body mass index. “Having a comparable control cohort is very important in developing such a diagnostic for accurate analysis of the potential false-positive rate,” Dr. Oxnard noted.
Three prototype assays were tested: A targeted sequencing assay entailing very deep sequencing across 507 genes for somatic mutations such as single-nucleotide variants and small insertions and/or deletions; a novel, whole-genome sequencing assay to detect somatic gene copy number changes; and a novel, whole-genome methylation sequencing assay to detect abnormal epigenetic changes.
Sequencing was also performed on DNA from white blood cells. “That’s very important. The white blood cells are rich with mutations that can pollute the DNA and make you think that there is cancer present in the cell-free DNA,” Dr. Oxnard explained. “You screen out this interference from the white blood cells and other biologic noise, and you are left with the final features: mutations, copy number variations, and methylation signatures that then go into the final assays being studied.”
Results showed that when assay specificity was 98%, sensitivity for early-stage (stage I-IIIA) lung cancer ranged from 38% to 51%, and sensitivity for late-stage (stage IIIB-IV) lung cancer ranged from 87% to 91%.
Among five presumed cancer-free individuals having positive results on all three assays, two subsequently received a cancer diagnosis (one with stage III ovarian cancer, one with stage II endometrial cancer).
An additional 19 cancer types across all stages were tested in the CCGA substudy. Early results for breast, gastrointestinal, gynecologic, blood, and other cancers were also reported at the meeting (abstracts 536, 12021, and 12003).
Dr. Oxnard disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Inivata, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Loxo Oncology, Ignyta, DropWorks, and GRAIL, and that he has patents, royalties, and/or other intellectual property with Chugai Pharmaceutical, Bio-Rad, Sysmex, and Guardant Health. The study was funded by GRAIL.
SOURCE: Oxnard GR et al. ASCO 2018. Abstract LBA8501.
CHICAGO – according to the first interim report from a substudy of the large, ongoing Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA).
“Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT is known to improve outcomes. And yet, CT-based lung cancer screening is not widely adopted,” said lead study author Geoffrey R. Oxnard, MD, associate professor of medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study was reported. “Criticisms of low-dose CT include the risk of false positives and overdiagnosis. We proposed to investigate an untapped opportunity for cancer detection, which is using cell-free DNA.”
Main substudy results among 164 patients with lung cancer and 923 comparable individuals without known cancer showed that at a specificity of 98%, the three assays evaluated detected up to 51% of early-stage (stage I-IIIA) lung cancers and up to 91% of late-stage (stage IIIB-IV) lung cancers. And among the healthy participants with false-positive results for lung cancer, several were ultimately found to have cancers of other types.
“This first interim analysis of the CCGA study demonstrates that comprehensive sequencing of the plasma cell-free DNA can generate high-quality data across the entire genome, and it permits noninvasive cancer detection. The assays can detect lung cancer across stages, across histologies, across populations,” Dr. Oxnard said.
“Together, these results support the promise of using cell-free, DNA-based assays to develop an early cancer detection test with high specificity. Further assay and clinical development is ongoing: There is a separate prospective trial enrolling, the STRIVE study, and there remain thousands of patients still on this CCGA study to be analyzed for further optimization and focusing of this assay towards an eventual cancer diagnostic.”
The cohort studied was not a screening population, so the assays’ performance cannot be compared with that of low-dose CT at this point, he said. But the hypothesis going forward is that the assays will have comparatively higher specificity, sparing some patients an unnecessary diagnostic work-up.
The population in which the final blood test might be used will depend on its diagnostic performance once the assays are fully refined and clinic ready, which will take some time, according to Dr. Oxnard. However, “2 years ago, this was a pipe dream. Two years ago, it was completely just a brainstorm that had no data to support it, and I didn’t believe that this could be done. Today, we actually have data to show that this is really feasible to find early-stage cancer in the blood. So this is a huge step forward and actually means that this is going to be a reality.”
“This is an important first step towards an easier way to detect lung cancer at earlier and hopefully more curable stages,” agreed ASCO Expert David Graham, MD, who is also medical director at the Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C. “If the promise of this report holds, we could easily see a day when a person could be screened for lung cancer and possibly other cancers simply by going into their regular doctor’s office for a blood draw.”
Study details
The CCGA study has enrolled more than 12,000 of its planned 15,000 participants (70% with cancer, 30% without) across 142 U.S. and Canadian sites.
The substudy reported had a development cohort (118 patients with lung cancer, 561 individuals without cancer) and a validation cohort (46 patients with lung cancer, 362 individuals without cancer), with the lung cancer and noncancer groups matched on age, race, and body mass index. “Having a comparable control cohort is very important in developing such a diagnostic for accurate analysis of the potential false-positive rate,” Dr. Oxnard noted.
Three prototype assays were tested: A targeted sequencing assay entailing very deep sequencing across 507 genes for somatic mutations such as single-nucleotide variants and small insertions and/or deletions; a novel, whole-genome sequencing assay to detect somatic gene copy number changes; and a novel, whole-genome methylation sequencing assay to detect abnormal epigenetic changes.
Sequencing was also performed on DNA from white blood cells. “That’s very important. The white blood cells are rich with mutations that can pollute the DNA and make you think that there is cancer present in the cell-free DNA,” Dr. Oxnard explained. “You screen out this interference from the white blood cells and other biologic noise, and you are left with the final features: mutations, copy number variations, and methylation signatures that then go into the final assays being studied.”
Results showed that when assay specificity was 98%, sensitivity for early-stage (stage I-IIIA) lung cancer ranged from 38% to 51%, and sensitivity for late-stage (stage IIIB-IV) lung cancer ranged from 87% to 91%.
Among five presumed cancer-free individuals having positive results on all three assays, two subsequently received a cancer diagnosis (one with stage III ovarian cancer, one with stage II endometrial cancer).
An additional 19 cancer types across all stages were tested in the CCGA substudy. Early results for breast, gastrointestinal, gynecologic, blood, and other cancers were also reported at the meeting (abstracts 536, 12021, and 12003).
Dr. Oxnard disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Inivata, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Loxo Oncology, Ignyta, DropWorks, and GRAIL, and that he has patents, royalties, and/or other intellectual property with Chugai Pharmaceutical, Bio-Rad, Sysmex, and Guardant Health. The study was funded by GRAIL.
SOURCE: Oxnard GR et al. ASCO 2018. Abstract LBA8501.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2018
Key clinical point: Three blood-based assays performed moderately well for identifying lung cancer in early, potentially curable stages.
Major finding: At 98% specificity, the assays had sensitivities of 38%-51% for detecting lung cancers of stage I-IIIA.
Study details: A case-control study of circulating cell-free DNA assays among 164 patients with lung cancer and 923 comparable individuals without cancer.
Disclosures: Dr. Oxnard disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Inivata, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Loxo Oncology, Ignyta, DropWorks, and GRAIL, and that he has patents, royalties, and/or other intellectual property with Chugai Pharmaceutical, Bio-Rad, Sysmex, and Guardant Health. The study was funded by GRAIL.
Source: Oxnard GR et al. ASCO 2018. Abstract LBA8501.