Victoria Stern

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email vstern@medscape.net to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email vstern@medscape.net to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email vstern@medscape.net to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 8 approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

These “milestone treatments” mark the first cell-based gene therapies for this debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States.

The two therapies are exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel (Casgevy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics), and lovotibeglogene autotemcel, or lovo-cel (Lyfgenia; bluebird bio). 

“The approval of the first gene therapies for [sickle cell disease] represents a tremendous step forward for the [sickle cell] community, which has been historically overlooked and underfunded,” said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a statement from the American Society of Hematology, following the approval.

“We are excited to advance the field, especially for individuals whose lives have been severely disrupted by the disease, by approving two cell-based gene therapies today,” Nicole Verdun, MD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, added in an agency press release.

Sickle cell disease involves a mutation in hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that provides oxygen to tissues. The mutation leads red blood cells to develop a crescent or sickle shape, which can restrict blood flow and cause severe pain and organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive events or crises. 

Treatment options prior to these approvals primarily included red blood transfusions and hydroxyurea alongside pain management. The only potential curative option has been allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but that comes with significant risks and most patients don’t have an appropriate donor.

Exa-cel

Exa-cel uses CRISPR gene-editing technology. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning, which removes cells from the bone marrow. These cells are genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. Patients then receive an infusion of the edited cells, which can help restore normal hemoglobin production. 

The FDA approval was based on data from the pivotal CLIMB SCD-121 trial. In an October advisory committee meeting, the FDA highlighted trial data demonstrating that 29 of 31 patients reached the trial’s primary endpoint: freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crises over a 12-month period. In addition, 28 of these patients remained free of vaso-occlusive crises for almost 2 years.

The committee noted that one of the 31 patients died about 9 months after receiving an exa-cel infusion. 

The cell-based gene therapy also increased both fetal and total hemoglobin, with total hemoglobin levels increasing to > 11 g/dL by month 3 and remaining at that level afterward. No patients experienced graft failure or rejection.

The most common side effects included low platelets and white blood cell counts, mouth sores, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and febrile neutropenia. 

Exa-cel could “provide a one-time functional cure” for patients with severe sickle cell disease, according to Franco Locatelli, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome, who presented initial findings last year.

While the current approval is for patients with infusion-dependent sickle cell disease, exa-cel is also being evaluated in patients with another blood disorder, beta-thalassemia.

Lovo-cel

Lovo-cel, a cell-based gene therapy, uses a different technology — a lentiviral vector, or gene delivery vehicle — that can also genetically modify a patient’s blood stem cells. 

Like exa-cel, lovo-cel is a one-time, single-dose infusion that contains the patient’s modified cells. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning. The patient’s stem cells are then genetically modified to allow them to produce the most common form of hemoglobin, HbA 

This approval was based on data from a single-arm, 24-month study in patients aged 12-50 years who had sickle cell disease and a history of vaso-occlusive events. 

Overall, 88% of patients (28 of 32) achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6-18 months after the infusion. 

The most common side effects included stomatitis; febrile neutropenia; and low platelet, white blood cell, and red blood cell counts.

The FDA noted that hematologic cancer has occurred in patients treated with lovo-cel, and the label includes a black-box warning about the risk. 

Dr. Brodsky noted, however, that “while these new gene therapies are potentially life-changing for individuals living with [sickle cell disease], they must be accessible to be effective.”

Access is a potential concern. Exa-cel and lovo-cel could cost about $2 million.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 8 approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

These “milestone treatments” mark the first cell-based gene therapies for this debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States.

The two therapies are exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel (Casgevy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics), and lovotibeglogene autotemcel, or lovo-cel (Lyfgenia; bluebird bio). 

“The approval of the first gene therapies for [sickle cell disease] represents a tremendous step forward for the [sickle cell] community, which has been historically overlooked and underfunded,” said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a statement from the American Society of Hematology, following the approval.

“We are excited to advance the field, especially for individuals whose lives have been severely disrupted by the disease, by approving two cell-based gene therapies today,” Nicole Verdun, MD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, added in an agency press release.

Sickle cell disease involves a mutation in hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that provides oxygen to tissues. The mutation leads red blood cells to develop a crescent or sickle shape, which can restrict blood flow and cause severe pain and organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive events or crises. 

Treatment options prior to these approvals primarily included red blood transfusions and hydroxyurea alongside pain management. The only potential curative option has been allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but that comes with significant risks and most patients don’t have an appropriate donor.

Exa-cel

Exa-cel uses CRISPR gene-editing technology. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning, which removes cells from the bone marrow. These cells are genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. Patients then receive an infusion of the edited cells, which can help restore normal hemoglobin production. 

The FDA approval was based on data from the pivotal CLIMB SCD-121 trial. In an October advisory committee meeting, the FDA highlighted trial data demonstrating that 29 of 31 patients reached the trial’s primary endpoint: freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crises over a 12-month period. In addition, 28 of these patients remained free of vaso-occlusive crises for almost 2 years.

The committee noted that one of the 31 patients died about 9 months after receiving an exa-cel infusion. 

The cell-based gene therapy also increased both fetal and total hemoglobin, with total hemoglobin levels increasing to > 11 g/dL by month 3 and remaining at that level afterward. No patients experienced graft failure or rejection.

The most common side effects included low platelets and white blood cell counts, mouth sores, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and febrile neutropenia. 

Exa-cel could “provide a one-time functional cure” for patients with severe sickle cell disease, according to Franco Locatelli, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome, who presented initial findings last year.

While the current approval is for patients with infusion-dependent sickle cell disease, exa-cel is also being evaluated in patients with another blood disorder, beta-thalassemia.

Lovo-cel

Lovo-cel, a cell-based gene therapy, uses a different technology — a lentiviral vector, or gene delivery vehicle — that can also genetically modify a patient’s blood stem cells. 

Like exa-cel, lovo-cel is a one-time, single-dose infusion that contains the patient’s modified cells. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning. The patient’s stem cells are then genetically modified to allow them to produce the most common form of hemoglobin, HbA 

This approval was based on data from a single-arm, 24-month study in patients aged 12-50 years who had sickle cell disease and a history of vaso-occlusive events. 

Overall, 88% of patients (28 of 32) achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6-18 months after the infusion. 

The most common side effects included stomatitis; febrile neutropenia; and low platelet, white blood cell, and red blood cell counts.

The FDA noted that hematologic cancer has occurred in patients treated with lovo-cel, and the label includes a black-box warning about the risk. 

Dr. Brodsky noted, however, that “while these new gene therapies are potentially life-changing for individuals living with [sickle cell disease], they must be accessible to be effective.”

Access is a potential concern. Exa-cel and lovo-cel could cost about $2 million.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 8 approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

These “milestone treatments” mark the first cell-based gene therapies for this debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States.

The two therapies are exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel (Casgevy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics), and lovotibeglogene autotemcel, or lovo-cel (Lyfgenia; bluebird bio). 

“The approval of the first gene therapies for [sickle cell disease] represents a tremendous step forward for the [sickle cell] community, which has been historically overlooked and underfunded,” said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a statement from the American Society of Hematology, following the approval.

“We are excited to advance the field, especially for individuals whose lives have been severely disrupted by the disease, by approving two cell-based gene therapies today,” Nicole Verdun, MD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, added in an agency press release.

Sickle cell disease involves a mutation in hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that provides oxygen to tissues. The mutation leads red blood cells to develop a crescent or sickle shape, which can restrict blood flow and cause severe pain and organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive events or crises. 

Treatment options prior to these approvals primarily included red blood transfusions and hydroxyurea alongside pain management. The only potential curative option has been allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but that comes with significant risks and most patients don’t have an appropriate donor.

Exa-cel

Exa-cel uses CRISPR gene-editing technology. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning, which removes cells from the bone marrow. These cells are genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. Patients then receive an infusion of the edited cells, which can help restore normal hemoglobin production. 

The FDA approval was based on data from the pivotal CLIMB SCD-121 trial. In an October advisory committee meeting, the FDA highlighted trial data demonstrating that 29 of 31 patients reached the trial’s primary endpoint: freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crises over a 12-month period. In addition, 28 of these patients remained free of vaso-occlusive crises for almost 2 years.

The committee noted that one of the 31 patients died about 9 months after receiving an exa-cel infusion. 

The cell-based gene therapy also increased both fetal and total hemoglobin, with total hemoglobin levels increasing to > 11 g/dL by month 3 and remaining at that level afterward. No patients experienced graft failure or rejection.

The most common side effects included low platelets and white blood cell counts, mouth sores, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and febrile neutropenia. 

Exa-cel could “provide a one-time functional cure” for patients with severe sickle cell disease, according to Franco Locatelli, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome, who presented initial findings last year.

While the current approval is for patients with infusion-dependent sickle cell disease, exa-cel is also being evaluated in patients with another blood disorder, beta-thalassemia.

Lovo-cel

Lovo-cel, a cell-based gene therapy, uses a different technology — a lentiviral vector, or gene delivery vehicle — that can also genetically modify a patient’s blood stem cells. 

Like exa-cel, lovo-cel is a one-time, single-dose infusion that contains the patient’s modified cells. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning. The patient’s stem cells are then genetically modified to allow them to produce the most common form of hemoglobin, HbA 

This approval was based on data from a single-arm, 24-month study in patients aged 12-50 years who had sickle cell disease and a history of vaso-occlusive events. 

Overall, 88% of patients (28 of 32) achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6-18 months after the infusion. 

The most common side effects included stomatitis; febrile neutropenia; and low platelet, white blood cell, and red blood cell counts.

The FDA noted that hematologic cancer has occurred in patients treated with lovo-cel, and the label includes a black-box warning about the risk. 

Dr. Brodsky noted, however, that “while these new gene therapies are potentially life-changing for individuals living with [sickle cell disease], they must be accessible to be effective.”

Access is a potential concern. Exa-cel and lovo-cel could cost about $2 million.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.

Her patient had taken his last prescription antinausea pill. Without a refill of ondansetron, he faced a long, painful weekend.

The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.

He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.

“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.

But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.

The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.

After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.

But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.

At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.

“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.

On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.

“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”

When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.

At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.

Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.

Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.

In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.

On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”

However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.

“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”

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

It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.

Her patient had taken his last prescription antinausea pill. Without a refill of ondansetron, he faced a long, painful weekend.

The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.

He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.

“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.

But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.

The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.

After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.

But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.

At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.

“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.

On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.

“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”

When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.

At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.

Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.

Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.

In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.

On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”

However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.

“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”

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

It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.

Her patient had taken his last prescription antinausea pill. Without a refill of ondansetron, he faced a long, painful weekend.

The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.

He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.

“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.

But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.

The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.

After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.

But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.

At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.

“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.

On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.

“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”

When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.

At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.

Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.

Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.

In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.

On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”

However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.

“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”

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

“Is this really the hill you want to die on?” asked Rebecca Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of California, San Diego.

It was Nov. 18 and Dr. Shatsky was on the phone with a retired oncologist working for the health insurance company Premera Blue Cross.

Dr. Shatsky was appealing a prior authorization denial for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat her patient with stage IIIc triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). She hoped the peer-to-peer would reverse the denial. The Food and Drug Administration had approved the immunotherapy for people with high-risk TNBC both in the neoadjuvant setting alongside chemotherapy and, in her patient’s case, as a single-agent adjuvant treatment based on data from the KEYNOTE 522 trial.

In the peer-to-peer, Dr. Shatsky laid out the evidence, but she could tell the physician wasn’t going to budge.

When she pressed him further, asking why he was denying potentially lifesaving care for her patient, he said the data on whether patients really need adjuvant pembrolizumab were not clear yet.

“The man – who was not a breast oncologist – was essentially mansplaining breast oncology to me,” she said in an interview. “I don’t need a nonexpert giving me their misinterpretation of the data.”

Dr. Shatsky informed him that this decision would not stand. She would be escalating the claim.

“I’m not going to let you get in way of my patient’s survival,” Dr. Shatsky told the physician during the peer-to-peer. “We have one shot to cure this, and if we don’t do it now, patients’ average lifespan is 17 months.”

The conversation turned a few heads in her office.

“My whole office stopped and stared. But then they clapped after they realized why I was yelling,” she tweeted later that night.

She continued: “@premera picked the wrong oncologist to mess with today. I will not be letting this go. This denial. Will. Not. Stand. An insurance company should not get to tell me how to practice medicine when Phase III RCT data and @NCCN + @ASCO guideline support my decision!”

A spokesperson for Premera said in a statement that, “while we did see many of the details about the case were posted to Twitter, we cannot comment on the specifics you noted due to privacy policies.”

The spokesperson explained that Premera has “the same goal as our provider partners: ensure our members have access to quality health care,” noting that prior authorization helps health plans evaluate the medical necessity and safety of health care services given that “15%-30% of care is unnecessary.”

“We also understand that providers may not agree with our decisions, which is why we have a robust appeals process,” the spokesperson said, suggesting Dr. Shatsky could have appealed the decision a second time.

And “if the member or provider still disagrees with Premera’s coverage decision after the initial appeal, providers can request review by a medical expert outside Premera who works for an independent review organization,” and the company “will pay for” and “abide by” that decision, the spokesperson added.
 

The Twitter storm

After Dr. Shatsky tweeted about her experience with Premera, she received a flood of support from the Twitterverse. The thread garnered tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of comments offering support and advice.

Several people suggested asking Merck for help accessing the drug. But Dr. Shatsky said no, “I’m tired of laying down and letting [insurance companies] win. It IS worth fighting for.”

The next morning, Dr. Shatsky got a call. It was the vice president of medical management at Premera.

“We’ve talked again, and we’ll give you the drug,” Dr. Shatsky recalled the Premera vice president saying.

The next day, Monday morning, Dr. Shatsky’s patient received her first infusion of pembrolizumab.

Although relieved, Dr. Shatsky noted that it wasn’t until she posted her experience to Twitter that Premera seemed to take notice.

According to health policy expert Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, getting patients the cancer care they need should not require an oncologist venting on social media. Plus, “an oncologist without a strong social media following may not have gotten care approved and that’s not how medicine should work,” said Dr. Anderson, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Tatiana Prowell, MD, expressed similar concerns in a Nov. 20 tweet: “And sadly, the patients with cancer & an even busier, more exhausted doctor who doesn’t have a big [reach] on social media will be denied appropriate care. And that’s bank for insurers.”

But, Dr. Prowell noted sarcastically: “At least a patient with cancer had her care delayed & a dedicated OncTwitter colleague’s Physician Burnout was exacerbated.”

In this case, the prior authorization process took about a week – requiring an initial prior authorization request, an appeal after the request was denied, a peer-to-peer resulting in a second denial, and finally a tweet and a phone call from a top executive at the company.

In fact, these delays have become so common that Dr. Shatsky needs to anticipate and incorporate likely delays into her workflow.

“I learn which drugs will take a long time to get prior authorization for and then plan enough time so that my patient’s care is hopefully not delayed,” Dr. Shatsky said. “It should not be so hard to get appropriate and time-sensitive care for our patients.”

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

“Is this really the hill you want to die on?” asked Rebecca Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of California, San Diego.

It was Nov. 18 and Dr. Shatsky was on the phone with a retired oncologist working for the health insurance company Premera Blue Cross.

Dr. Shatsky was appealing a prior authorization denial for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat her patient with stage IIIc triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). She hoped the peer-to-peer would reverse the denial. The Food and Drug Administration had approved the immunotherapy for people with high-risk TNBC both in the neoadjuvant setting alongside chemotherapy and, in her patient’s case, as a single-agent adjuvant treatment based on data from the KEYNOTE 522 trial.

In the peer-to-peer, Dr. Shatsky laid out the evidence, but she could tell the physician wasn’t going to budge.

When she pressed him further, asking why he was denying potentially lifesaving care for her patient, he said the data on whether patients really need adjuvant pembrolizumab were not clear yet.

“The man – who was not a breast oncologist – was essentially mansplaining breast oncology to me,” she said in an interview. “I don’t need a nonexpert giving me their misinterpretation of the data.”

Dr. Shatsky informed him that this decision would not stand. She would be escalating the claim.

“I’m not going to let you get in way of my patient’s survival,” Dr. Shatsky told the physician during the peer-to-peer. “We have one shot to cure this, and if we don’t do it now, patients’ average lifespan is 17 months.”

The conversation turned a few heads in her office.

“My whole office stopped and stared. But then they clapped after they realized why I was yelling,” she tweeted later that night.

She continued: “@premera picked the wrong oncologist to mess with today. I will not be letting this go. This denial. Will. Not. Stand. An insurance company should not get to tell me how to practice medicine when Phase III RCT data and @NCCN + @ASCO guideline support my decision!”

A spokesperson for Premera said in a statement that, “while we did see many of the details about the case were posted to Twitter, we cannot comment on the specifics you noted due to privacy policies.”

The spokesperson explained that Premera has “the same goal as our provider partners: ensure our members have access to quality health care,” noting that prior authorization helps health plans evaluate the medical necessity and safety of health care services given that “15%-30% of care is unnecessary.”

“We also understand that providers may not agree with our decisions, which is why we have a robust appeals process,” the spokesperson said, suggesting Dr. Shatsky could have appealed the decision a second time.

And “if the member or provider still disagrees with Premera’s coverage decision after the initial appeal, providers can request review by a medical expert outside Premera who works for an independent review organization,” and the company “will pay for” and “abide by” that decision, the spokesperson added.
 

The Twitter storm

After Dr. Shatsky tweeted about her experience with Premera, she received a flood of support from the Twitterverse. The thread garnered tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of comments offering support and advice.

Several people suggested asking Merck for help accessing the drug. But Dr. Shatsky said no, “I’m tired of laying down and letting [insurance companies] win. It IS worth fighting for.”

The next morning, Dr. Shatsky got a call. It was the vice president of medical management at Premera.

“We’ve talked again, and we’ll give you the drug,” Dr. Shatsky recalled the Premera vice president saying.

The next day, Monday morning, Dr. Shatsky’s patient received her first infusion of pembrolizumab.

Although relieved, Dr. Shatsky noted that it wasn’t until she posted her experience to Twitter that Premera seemed to take notice.

According to health policy expert Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, getting patients the cancer care they need should not require an oncologist venting on social media. Plus, “an oncologist without a strong social media following may not have gotten care approved and that’s not how medicine should work,” said Dr. Anderson, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Tatiana Prowell, MD, expressed similar concerns in a Nov. 20 tweet: “And sadly, the patients with cancer & an even busier, more exhausted doctor who doesn’t have a big [reach] on social media will be denied appropriate care. And that’s bank for insurers.”

But, Dr. Prowell noted sarcastically: “At least a patient with cancer had her care delayed & a dedicated OncTwitter colleague’s Physician Burnout was exacerbated.”

In this case, the prior authorization process took about a week – requiring an initial prior authorization request, an appeal after the request was denied, a peer-to-peer resulting in a second denial, and finally a tweet and a phone call from a top executive at the company.

In fact, these delays have become so common that Dr. Shatsky needs to anticipate and incorporate likely delays into her workflow.

“I learn which drugs will take a long time to get prior authorization for and then plan enough time so that my patient’s care is hopefully not delayed,” Dr. Shatsky said. “It should not be so hard to get appropriate and time-sensitive care for our patients.”

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

“Is this really the hill you want to die on?” asked Rebecca Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of California, San Diego.

It was Nov. 18 and Dr. Shatsky was on the phone with a retired oncologist working for the health insurance company Premera Blue Cross.

Dr. Shatsky was appealing a prior authorization denial for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat her patient with stage IIIc triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). She hoped the peer-to-peer would reverse the denial. The Food and Drug Administration had approved the immunotherapy for people with high-risk TNBC both in the neoadjuvant setting alongside chemotherapy and, in her patient’s case, as a single-agent adjuvant treatment based on data from the KEYNOTE 522 trial.

In the peer-to-peer, Dr. Shatsky laid out the evidence, but she could tell the physician wasn’t going to budge.

When she pressed him further, asking why he was denying potentially lifesaving care for her patient, he said the data on whether patients really need adjuvant pembrolizumab were not clear yet.

“The man – who was not a breast oncologist – was essentially mansplaining breast oncology to me,” she said in an interview. “I don’t need a nonexpert giving me their misinterpretation of the data.”

Dr. Shatsky informed him that this decision would not stand. She would be escalating the claim.

“I’m not going to let you get in way of my patient’s survival,” Dr. Shatsky told the physician during the peer-to-peer. “We have one shot to cure this, and if we don’t do it now, patients’ average lifespan is 17 months.”

The conversation turned a few heads in her office.

“My whole office stopped and stared. But then they clapped after they realized why I was yelling,” she tweeted later that night.

She continued: “@premera picked the wrong oncologist to mess with today. I will not be letting this go. This denial. Will. Not. Stand. An insurance company should not get to tell me how to practice medicine when Phase III RCT data and @NCCN + @ASCO guideline support my decision!”

A spokesperson for Premera said in a statement that, “while we did see many of the details about the case were posted to Twitter, we cannot comment on the specifics you noted due to privacy policies.”

The spokesperson explained that Premera has “the same goal as our provider partners: ensure our members have access to quality health care,” noting that prior authorization helps health plans evaluate the medical necessity and safety of health care services given that “15%-30% of care is unnecessary.”

“We also understand that providers may not agree with our decisions, which is why we have a robust appeals process,” the spokesperson said, suggesting Dr. Shatsky could have appealed the decision a second time.

And “if the member or provider still disagrees with Premera’s coverage decision after the initial appeal, providers can request review by a medical expert outside Premera who works for an independent review organization,” and the company “will pay for” and “abide by” that decision, the spokesperson added.
 

The Twitter storm

After Dr. Shatsky tweeted about her experience with Premera, she received a flood of support from the Twitterverse. The thread garnered tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of comments offering support and advice.

Several people suggested asking Merck for help accessing the drug. But Dr. Shatsky said no, “I’m tired of laying down and letting [insurance companies] win. It IS worth fighting for.”

The next morning, Dr. Shatsky got a call. It was the vice president of medical management at Premera.

“We’ve talked again, and we’ll give you the drug,” Dr. Shatsky recalled the Premera vice president saying.

The next day, Monday morning, Dr. Shatsky’s patient received her first infusion of pembrolizumab.

Although relieved, Dr. Shatsky noted that it wasn’t until she posted her experience to Twitter that Premera seemed to take notice.

According to health policy expert Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, getting patients the cancer care they need should not require an oncologist venting on social media. Plus, “an oncologist without a strong social media following may not have gotten care approved and that’s not how medicine should work,” said Dr. Anderson, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Tatiana Prowell, MD, expressed similar concerns in a Nov. 20 tweet: “And sadly, the patients with cancer & an even busier, more exhausted doctor who doesn’t have a big [reach] on social media will be denied appropriate care. And that’s bank for insurers.”

But, Dr. Prowell noted sarcastically: “At least a patient with cancer had her care delayed & a dedicated OncTwitter colleague’s Physician Burnout was exacerbated.”

In this case, the prior authorization process took about a week – requiring an initial prior authorization request, an appeal after the request was denied, a peer-to-peer resulting in a second denial, and finally a tweet and a phone call from a top executive at the company.

In fact, these delays have become so common that Dr. Shatsky needs to anticipate and incorporate likely delays into her workflow.

“I learn which drugs will take a long time to get prior authorization for and then plan enough time so that my patient’s care is hopefully not delayed,” Dr. Shatsky said. “It should not be so hard to get appropriate and time-sensitive care for our patients.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

FDA_icon3_web.jpg

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

FDA_icon3_web.jpg

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

FDA_icon3_web.jpg

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on Feb. 3 its investigation into “a possible increased risk of death” associated with the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq).

The FDA granted accelerated approval to umbralisib in February 2021 for patients with two types of lymphoma: Adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma who received at least one prior therapy, and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who received at least three prior therapies.

According to the FDA, the possible increased risk of death arose from early findings in a phase 3 trial evaluating the drug in a related type of cancer: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“Because of the seriousness of this safety concern and the similarities between the two types of cancer for which this drug is approved and the type of cancer that was studied in the clinical trial, we are alerting patients and health care professionals that we are reevaluating this risk against the benefits of Ukoniq [umbralisib] for its approved uses,” the FDA safety communication states.

The FDA said it performed an initial review of data from the phase 3, randomized controlled UNITY trial, which is evaluating the efficacy of umbralisib plus a monoclonal antibody in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“The results showed a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody compared to the control arm,” according to the FDA. “Those receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody also experienced more serious adverse events than those in the control arm.”

Although the drug has not been approved for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the FDA believes the findings could “have implications for its approved uses” in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

However, the phase 2 trial that led to February 2021 approvals found the drug’s safety profile to be “manageable,” with serious adverse reactions reported in 18% of patients receiving the dual oral inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3 kinase delta and casein kinase 1 epsilon. These adverse reactions included diarrhea-colitis (4%), pneumonia (3%), sepsis (2%), and urinary tract infection (2%); however, no elevated risk of death was indicated in that analysis.

The FDA noted it will continue to evaluate the results from the phase 3 UNITY trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and has suspended enrollment of new patients in other ongoing clinical trials of the drug.

The FDA stated that it would communicate its “final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review.” In the meantime, the agency asks health care professionals to review how patients receiving umbralisib are faring and discuss “the risks and benefits of continuing” versus switching to other treatments.

The FDA also asks clinicians and patients to report side effects involving the drug to the FDA MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on Feb. 3 its investigation into “a possible increased risk of death” associated with the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq).

The FDA granted accelerated approval to umbralisib in February 2021 for patients with two types of lymphoma: Adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma who received at least one prior therapy, and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who received at least three prior therapies.

According to the FDA, the possible increased risk of death arose from early findings in a phase 3 trial evaluating the drug in a related type of cancer: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“Because of the seriousness of this safety concern and the similarities between the two types of cancer for which this drug is approved and the type of cancer that was studied in the clinical trial, we are alerting patients and health care professionals that we are reevaluating this risk against the benefits of Ukoniq [umbralisib] for its approved uses,” the FDA safety communication states.

The FDA said it performed an initial review of data from the phase 3, randomized controlled UNITY trial, which is evaluating the efficacy of umbralisib plus a monoclonal antibody in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“The results showed a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody compared to the control arm,” according to the FDA. “Those receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody also experienced more serious adverse events than those in the control arm.”

Although the drug has not been approved for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the FDA believes the findings could “have implications for its approved uses” in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

However, the phase 2 trial that led to February 2021 approvals found the drug’s safety profile to be “manageable,” with serious adverse reactions reported in 18% of patients receiving the dual oral inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3 kinase delta and casein kinase 1 epsilon. These adverse reactions included diarrhea-colitis (4%), pneumonia (3%), sepsis (2%), and urinary tract infection (2%); however, no elevated risk of death was indicated in that analysis.

The FDA noted it will continue to evaluate the results from the phase 3 UNITY trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and has suspended enrollment of new patients in other ongoing clinical trials of the drug.

The FDA stated that it would communicate its “final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review.” In the meantime, the agency asks health care professionals to review how patients receiving umbralisib are faring and discuss “the risks and benefits of continuing” versus switching to other treatments.

The FDA also asks clinicians and patients to report side effects involving the drug to the FDA MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on Feb. 3 its investigation into “a possible increased risk of death” associated with the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq).

The FDA granted accelerated approval to umbralisib in February 2021 for patients with two types of lymphoma: Adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma who received at least one prior therapy, and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who received at least three prior therapies.

According to the FDA, the possible increased risk of death arose from early findings in a phase 3 trial evaluating the drug in a related type of cancer: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“Because of the seriousness of this safety concern and the similarities between the two types of cancer for which this drug is approved and the type of cancer that was studied in the clinical trial, we are alerting patients and health care professionals that we are reevaluating this risk against the benefits of Ukoniq [umbralisib] for its approved uses,” the FDA safety communication states.

The FDA said it performed an initial review of data from the phase 3, randomized controlled UNITY trial, which is evaluating the efficacy of umbralisib plus a monoclonal antibody in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“The results showed a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody compared to the control arm,” according to the FDA. “Those receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody also experienced more serious adverse events than those in the control arm.”

Although the drug has not been approved for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the FDA believes the findings could “have implications for its approved uses” in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

However, the phase 2 trial that led to February 2021 approvals found the drug’s safety profile to be “manageable,” with serious adverse reactions reported in 18% of patients receiving the dual oral inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3 kinase delta and casein kinase 1 epsilon. These adverse reactions included diarrhea-colitis (4%), pneumonia (3%), sepsis (2%), and urinary tract infection (2%); however, no elevated risk of death was indicated in that analysis.

The FDA noted it will continue to evaluate the results from the phase 3 UNITY trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and has suspended enrollment of new patients in other ongoing clinical trials of the drug.

The FDA stated that it would communicate its “final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review.” In the meantime, the agency asks health care professionals to review how patients receiving umbralisib are faring and discuss “the risks and benefits of continuing” versus switching to other treatments.

The FDA also asks clinicians and patients to report side effects involving the drug to the FDA MedWatch program.

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

Treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the more lethal breast cancer subtypes, remains a challenge. By definition, TNBC lacks the three telltale molecular signatures known to spur tumor growth: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). A growing amount of literature shows that these frequently aggressive tumors harbor a rich array of molecular characteristics but no clear oncogenic driver.

“TNBC is incredibly heterogeneous, which makes it challenging to treat,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “We have subsets of TNBC that don’t respond to currently available therapies and, as of yet, have no identifiable therapeutic targets.”

Overall, about 40% of patients with TNBC show a pathologic complete response after first-line neoadjuvant chemotherapy – typically anthracycline and taxane-based agents. But for 50% of patients, chemotherapy leaves behind substantial residual cancer tissue. These patients subsequently face a 40%-80% risk for recurrence and progression to advanced disease.

When triple-negative disease metastasizes, survival rates plummet. The most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, which tracked patients by stage of diagnosis between 2010 and 2016, showed steep declines in 5-year survival as TNBC progressed from local (91.2%) to regional (65%) to advanced-stage disease (11.5%).

Experts have started to make headway identifying and targeting different molecular features of advanced TNBC. These approaches often focus on three key areas: targeting cell surface proteins or oncogenes, stimulating an anticancer immune response, or inhibiting an overactive signaling pathway.

“For a patient with metastatic breast cancer, finding a molecular target or an oncogenic driver is essential,” said Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Because TNBC encompasses many different molecular subsets of breast cancer, the development of effective new therapeutics is going to depend on subdividing TNBC into categories with more clear targets.”
 

A targeted strategy

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of sacituzumab govitecan, the first antibody-drug conjugate to treat metastatic TNBC, marked an important addition to the TNBC drug armamentarium. “Sacituzumab govitecan is one of the most exciting drugs available for the treatment of metastatic disease,” Dr. Nanda said.

Sacituzumab govitecan, approved as third-line therapy for metastatic TNBC, works by targeting the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in about 88% of TNBC tumors but rarely in healthy cells.

In the phase 1/2 ASCENT trial, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and overall survival was 13.0 months in 108 patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two therapies prior to sacituzumab govitecan.

A subsequent phase 3 trial showed progression-free survival of 5.6 months with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median overall survival was 12.1 months and 6.7 months, respectively.

But, according to the analysis, TROP2 expression did not necessarily predict who would benefit from sacituzumab govitecan. A biomarker study revealed that although patients with moderate to high TROP2 expression exhibited the strongest treatment response, those with low TROP2 expression also survived longer when given sacituzumab govitecan, compared with chemotherapy alone.

In other words, “patients did better on sacituzumab govitecan regardless of TROP2 expression, which suggests we do not have a good biomarker for identifying who will benefit,” Dr. Nanda said.

Two other investigational antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab deruxtecan and ladiratuzumab vedotin, show promise in the metastatic space as well. For instance, the recent phase 2 trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer reported treatment response in 44% of patients with HER2-low tumors.

Given that about 36.6% of TNBC tumors exhibit low levels of HER2 expression, “trastuzumab deruxtecan represents potential in treating HER2-low TNBC,” said Yuan Yuan, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

Early results from a phase 1b study showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan produced a response rate of 37% in patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

Investigators are now recruiting for an open-label phase 3 trial to determine whether trastuzumab deruxtecan extends survival in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancers.
 

Immunotherapy advances

Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent another promising treatment avenue for metastatic TNBC. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, recently approved by the FDA, show moderate progression-free and overall survival benefits in patients with metastatic TNBC expressing PD-L1. Estimates of PD-L1 immune cells present in TNBC tumors vary widely, from about 20% to 65%.

Yet, data on which patients will benefit are not so clear-cut. “These drugs give us more choices and represent the fast-evolving therapeutic landscape in TNBC, but they also leave a lot of unanswered questions about PD-L1 as a biomarker,” Dr. Yuan said.

Take two recent phase 3 trials evaluating atezolizumab: IMpassion130 and IMpassion131. In IMpassion130, patients with PDL1–positive tumors exhibited significantly longer median overall survival on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (25.0 months) compared with nab-paclitaxel alone (15.5 months). As with the trend observed in the TROP2 data for sacituzumab govitecan, all patients survived longer on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel regardless of PD-L1 status: 21.3 months vs. 17.6 months with nab-paclitaxel alone.

However, in IMpassion131, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival significantly improved in the PD-L1–positive group receiving atezolizumab plus paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone: Progression-free survival was 5.7 months vs. 6 months, respectively, and overall survival was 28.3 months vs. 22.1 months.

“It is unclear why this study failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel,” Dr. Nanda said. “Perhaps the negative finding has to do with how the trial was conducted, or perhaps the PD-L1 assay used is an unreliable biomarker of immunotherapy benefit.”
 

Continued efforts to understand TNBC

Given the diversity of metastatic TNBC and the absence of clear molecular targets, researchers are exploring a host of therapeutic strategies in addition to antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapies.

On the oncogene front, researchers are investigating common mutations in TNBC. About 11% of TNBC tumors, for instance, carry germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. These tumors may be more likely to respond to platinum agents and PARP inhibitors, such as FDA-approved olaparib. In a phase 3 trial, patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation who received olaparib exhibited a 2.8-month longer median progression-free survival and a 42% reduced risk for disease progression or death compared with those on standard chemotherapy.

When considering signaling pathways, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been the target of numerous clinical trials. Dysregulation of signaling through the PI3K and AKT signaling pathway occurs in 25%-30% of patients with advanced TNBC, and AKT inhibitors have been shown to extend survival in these patients. Data show, for instance, that adding capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy in patients with metastatic TNBC led to longer overall survival – 19.1 months vs. 12.6 with placebo plus paclitaxel – with better survival results in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN altered tumors.

But there’s more to learn about treating metastatic TNBC. “Relapses tend to occur early in TNBC, and some tumors are inherently resistant to chemotherapy from the get-go,” said Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Understanding the causes of drug response and resistance in patients with metastatic TNBC represents the holy grail.”

Dr. Nanda agreed, noting that advancing treatments for TNBC will hinge on identifying the key factors driving metastasis. “For TNBC, we are still trying to elucidate the best molecular targets, while at the same time trying to identify robust biomarkers to predict benefit from therapies we already have available,” she said.

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

Treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the more lethal breast cancer subtypes, remains a challenge. By definition, TNBC lacks the three telltale molecular signatures known to spur tumor growth: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). A growing amount of literature shows that these frequently aggressive tumors harbor a rich array of molecular characteristics but no clear oncogenic driver.

“TNBC is incredibly heterogeneous, which makes it challenging to treat,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “We have subsets of TNBC that don’t respond to currently available therapies and, as of yet, have no identifiable therapeutic targets.”

Overall, about 40% of patients with TNBC show a pathologic complete response after first-line neoadjuvant chemotherapy – typically anthracycline and taxane-based agents. But for 50% of patients, chemotherapy leaves behind substantial residual cancer tissue. These patients subsequently face a 40%-80% risk for recurrence and progression to advanced disease.

When triple-negative disease metastasizes, survival rates plummet. The most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, which tracked patients by stage of diagnosis between 2010 and 2016, showed steep declines in 5-year survival as TNBC progressed from local (91.2%) to regional (65%) to advanced-stage disease (11.5%).

Experts have started to make headway identifying and targeting different molecular features of advanced TNBC. These approaches often focus on three key areas: targeting cell surface proteins or oncogenes, stimulating an anticancer immune response, or inhibiting an overactive signaling pathway.

“For a patient with metastatic breast cancer, finding a molecular target or an oncogenic driver is essential,” said Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Because TNBC encompasses many different molecular subsets of breast cancer, the development of effective new therapeutics is going to depend on subdividing TNBC into categories with more clear targets.”
 

A targeted strategy

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of sacituzumab govitecan, the first antibody-drug conjugate to treat metastatic TNBC, marked an important addition to the TNBC drug armamentarium. “Sacituzumab govitecan is one of the most exciting drugs available for the treatment of metastatic disease,” Dr. Nanda said.

Sacituzumab govitecan, approved as third-line therapy for metastatic TNBC, works by targeting the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in about 88% of TNBC tumors but rarely in healthy cells.

In the phase 1/2 ASCENT trial, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and overall survival was 13.0 months in 108 patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two therapies prior to sacituzumab govitecan.

A subsequent phase 3 trial showed progression-free survival of 5.6 months with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median overall survival was 12.1 months and 6.7 months, respectively.

But, according to the analysis, TROP2 expression did not necessarily predict who would benefit from sacituzumab govitecan. A biomarker study revealed that although patients with moderate to high TROP2 expression exhibited the strongest treatment response, those with low TROP2 expression also survived longer when given sacituzumab govitecan, compared with chemotherapy alone.

In other words, “patients did better on sacituzumab govitecan regardless of TROP2 expression, which suggests we do not have a good biomarker for identifying who will benefit,” Dr. Nanda said.

Two other investigational antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab deruxtecan and ladiratuzumab vedotin, show promise in the metastatic space as well. For instance, the recent phase 2 trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer reported treatment response in 44% of patients with HER2-low tumors.

Given that about 36.6% of TNBC tumors exhibit low levels of HER2 expression, “trastuzumab deruxtecan represents potential in treating HER2-low TNBC,” said Yuan Yuan, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

Early results from a phase 1b study showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan produced a response rate of 37% in patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

Investigators are now recruiting for an open-label phase 3 trial to determine whether trastuzumab deruxtecan extends survival in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancers.
 

Immunotherapy advances

Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent another promising treatment avenue for metastatic TNBC. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, recently approved by the FDA, show moderate progression-free and overall survival benefits in patients with metastatic TNBC expressing PD-L1. Estimates of PD-L1 immune cells present in TNBC tumors vary widely, from about 20% to 65%.

Yet, data on which patients will benefit are not so clear-cut. “These drugs give us more choices and represent the fast-evolving therapeutic landscape in TNBC, but they also leave a lot of unanswered questions about PD-L1 as a biomarker,” Dr. Yuan said.

Take two recent phase 3 trials evaluating atezolizumab: IMpassion130 and IMpassion131. In IMpassion130, patients with PDL1–positive tumors exhibited significantly longer median overall survival on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (25.0 months) compared with nab-paclitaxel alone (15.5 months). As with the trend observed in the TROP2 data for sacituzumab govitecan, all patients survived longer on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel regardless of PD-L1 status: 21.3 months vs. 17.6 months with nab-paclitaxel alone.

However, in IMpassion131, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival significantly improved in the PD-L1–positive group receiving atezolizumab plus paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone: Progression-free survival was 5.7 months vs. 6 months, respectively, and overall survival was 28.3 months vs. 22.1 months.

“It is unclear why this study failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel,” Dr. Nanda said. “Perhaps the negative finding has to do with how the trial was conducted, or perhaps the PD-L1 assay used is an unreliable biomarker of immunotherapy benefit.”
 

Continued efforts to understand TNBC

Given the diversity of metastatic TNBC and the absence of clear molecular targets, researchers are exploring a host of therapeutic strategies in addition to antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapies.

On the oncogene front, researchers are investigating common mutations in TNBC. About 11% of TNBC tumors, for instance, carry germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. These tumors may be more likely to respond to platinum agents and PARP inhibitors, such as FDA-approved olaparib. In a phase 3 trial, patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation who received olaparib exhibited a 2.8-month longer median progression-free survival and a 42% reduced risk for disease progression or death compared with those on standard chemotherapy.

When considering signaling pathways, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been the target of numerous clinical trials. Dysregulation of signaling through the PI3K and AKT signaling pathway occurs in 25%-30% of patients with advanced TNBC, and AKT inhibitors have been shown to extend survival in these patients. Data show, for instance, that adding capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy in patients with metastatic TNBC led to longer overall survival – 19.1 months vs. 12.6 with placebo plus paclitaxel – with better survival results in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN altered tumors.

But there’s more to learn about treating metastatic TNBC. “Relapses tend to occur early in TNBC, and some tumors are inherently resistant to chemotherapy from the get-go,” said Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Understanding the causes of drug response and resistance in patients with metastatic TNBC represents the holy grail.”

Dr. Nanda agreed, noting that advancing treatments for TNBC will hinge on identifying the key factors driving metastasis. “For TNBC, we are still trying to elucidate the best molecular targets, while at the same time trying to identify robust biomarkers to predict benefit from therapies we already have available,” she said.

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

Treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the more lethal breast cancer subtypes, remains a challenge. By definition, TNBC lacks the three telltale molecular signatures known to spur tumor growth: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). A growing amount of literature shows that these frequently aggressive tumors harbor a rich array of molecular characteristics but no clear oncogenic driver.

“TNBC is incredibly heterogeneous, which makes it challenging to treat,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “We have subsets of TNBC that don’t respond to currently available therapies and, as of yet, have no identifiable therapeutic targets.”

Overall, about 40% of patients with TNBC show a pathologic complete response after first-line neoadjuvant chemotherapy – typically anthracycline and taxane-based agents. But for 50% of patients, chemotherapy leaves behind substantial residual cancer tissue. These patients subsequently face a 40%-80% risk for recurrence and progression to advanced disease.

When triple-negative disease metastasizes, survival rates plummet. The most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, which tracked patients by stage of diagnosis between 2010 and 2016, showed steep declines in 5-year survival as TNBC progressed from local (91.2%) to regional (65%) to advanced-stage disease (11.5%).

Experts have started to make headway identifying and targeting different molecular features of advanced TNBC. These approaches often focus on three key areas: targeting cell surface proteins or oncogenes, stimulating an anticancer immune response, or inhibiting an overactive signaling pathway.

“For a patient with metastatic breast cancer, finding a molecular target or an oncogenic driver is essential,” said Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Because TNBC encompasses many different molecular subsets of breast cancer, the development of effective new therapeutics is going to depend on subdividing TNBC into categories with more clear targets.”
 

A targeted strategy

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of sacituzumab govitecan, the first antibody-drug conjugate to treat metastatic TNBC, marked an important addition to the TNBC drug armamentarium. “Sacituzumab govitecan is one of the most exciting drugs available for the treatment of metastatic disease,” Dr. Nanda said.

Sacituzumab govitecan, approved as third-line therapy for metastatic TNBC, works by targeting the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in about 88% of TNBC tumors but rarely in healthy cells.

In the phase 1/2 ASCENT trial, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and overall survival was 13.0 months in 108 patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two therapies prior to sacituzumab govitecan.

A subsequent phase 3 trial showed progression-free survival of 5.6 months with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median overall survival was 12.1 months and 6.7 months, respectively.

But, according to the analysis, TROP2 expression did not necessarily predict who would benefit from sacituzumab govitecan. A biomarker study revealed that although patients with moderate to high TROP2 expression exhibited the strongest treatment response, those with low TROP2 expression also survived longer when given sacituzumab govitecan, compared with chemotherapy alone.

In other words, “patients did better on sacituzumab govitecan regardless of TROP2 expression, which suggests we do not have a good biomarker for identifying who will benefit,” Dr. Nanda said.

Two other investigational antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab deruxtecan and ladiratuzumab vedotin, show promise in the metastatic space as well. For instance, the recent phase 2 trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer reported treatment response in 44% of patients with HER2-low tumors.

Given that about 36.6% of TNBC tumors exhibit low levels of HER2 expression, “trastuzumab deruxtecan represents potential in treating HER2-low TNBC,” said Yuan Yuan, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

Early results from a phase 1b study showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan produced a response rate of 37% in patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

Investigators are now recruiting for an open-label phase 3 trial to determine whether trastuzumab deruxtecan extends survival in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancers.
 

Immunotherapy advances

Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent another promising treatment avenue for metastatic TNBC. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, recently approved by the FDA, show moderate progression-free and overall survival benefits in patients with metastatic TNBC expressing PD-L1. Estimates of PD-L1 immune cells present in TNBC tumors vary widely, from about 20% to 65%.

Yet, data on which patients will benefit are not so clear-cut. “These drugs give us more choices and represent the fast-evolving therapeutic landscape in TNBC, but they also leave a lot of unanswered questions about PD-L1 as a biomarker,” Dr. Yuan said.

Take two recent phase 3 trials evaluating atezolizumab: IMpassion130 and IMpassion131. In IMpassion130, patients with PDL1–positive tumors exhibited significantly longer median overall survival on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (25.0 months) compared with nab-paclitaxel alone (15.5 months). As with the trend observed in the TROP2 data for sacituzumab govitecan, all patients survived longer on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel regardless of PD-L1 status: 21.3 months vs. 17.6 months with nab-paclitaxel alone.

However, in IMpassion131, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival significantly improved in the PD-L1–positive group receiving atezolizumab plus paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone: Progression-free survival was 5.7 months vs. 6 months, respectively, and overall survival was 28.3 months vs. 22.1 months.

“It is unclear why this study failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel,” Dr. Nanda said. “Perhaps the negative finding has to do with how the trial was conducted, or perhaps the PD-L1 assay used is an unreliable biomarker of immunotherapy benefit.”
 

Continued efforts to understand TNBC

Given the diversity of metastatic TNBC and the absence of clear molecular targets, researchers are exploring a host of therapeutic strategies in addition to antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapies.

On the oncogene front, researchers are investigating common mutations in TNBC. About 11% of TNBC tumors, for instance, carry germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. These tumors may be more likely to respond to platinum agents and PARP inhibitors, such as FDA-approved olaparib. In a phase 3 trial, patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation who received olaparib exhibited a 2.8-month longer median progression-free survival and a 42% reduced risk for disease progression or death compared with those on standard chemotherapy.

When considering signaling pathways, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been the target of numerous clinical trials. Dysregulation of signaling through the PI3K and AKT signaling pathway occurs in 25%-30% of patients with advanced TNBC, and AKT inhibitors have been shown to extend survival in these patients. Data show, for instance, that adding capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy in patients with metastatic TNBC led to longer overall survival – 19.1 months vs. 12.6 with placebo plus paclitaxel – with better survival results in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN altered tumors.

But there’s more to learn about treating metastatic TNBC. “Relapses tend to occur early in TNBC, and some tumors are inherently resistant to chemotherapy from the get-go,” said Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Understanding the causes of drug response and resistance in patients with metastatic TNBC represents the holy grail.”

Dr. Nanda agreed, noting that advancing treatments for TNBC will hinge on identifying the key factors driving metastasis. “For TNBC, we are still trying to elucidate the best molecular targets, while at the same time trying to identify robust biomarkers to predict benefit from therapies we already have available,” she said.

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