Victoria Stern, MA

The landscape for therapies targeting HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has evolved rapidly in the past few years. In a 12-month window, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved four agents targeting human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)–positive MBC, starting with trastuzumab deruxtecan in December 2019, followed by neratinib and tucatinib a few months later, and margetuximab last December.

Although first-line therapy for the majority of patients continues to be the CLEOPATRA regimen — the monoclonal antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab plus a taxane, such as docetaxel or paclitaxel — the influx of agents approved in the metastatic setting has opened up new avenues for second-line therapy and beyond.

“We have been really fortunate to see a number of highly effective new therapies approved for HER2-positive MBC in the past year, and this has given us even more options to offer our patients,” remarked Rita Nanda, MD, director of the Breast Oncology Program and associate professor of medicine at University of Chicago Medicine.

What considerations do experts weigh when sequencing HER2-positive MBC?

For Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, the order largely depends on balancing two factors: regimens that will provide the best efficacy in terms of patient survival and quality of life. “In the metastatic setting, I know I’m going to end up using all of the available medications one after the other, so the order that allows patients to continue living their best life for as long as possible is essential,” commented Dr. McCann, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.

A new second-line option?

Before the wave of drug approvals for metastatic HER2-positive disease last year, oncologists routinely looked to trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) as second-line therapy.

But tucatinib may also now be considered in the second-line setting, after results from the HER2CLIMB trial. The decision between tucatinib and T-DM1 largely comes down to the presence or absence of brain metastases.

“T-DM1 is well-tolerated, so it’s still my go-to in the second-line setting unless my patient has a brain metastasis, in which case I opt for tucatinib,” Dr. McCann noted, adding that the HER2-specific oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) not only crosses the blood-brain barrier but is also effective in patients with untreated brain metastases.

In HER2CLIMB, tucatinib exhibited strong efficacy in patients with advanced HER2-positive disease, including those with previously treated or untreated brain metastases. The randomized controlled trial, which paired tucatinib with trastuzumab and capecitabine, showed median progression-free survival of 7.8 months in 410 patients with HER2-positive MBC compared with 5.6 months in the 202 patients receiving the placebo regimen. The tucatinib cohort showed an overall survival advantage compared with the placebo group (21.9 vs 17.4 months).

Perhaps the most notable finding occurred in patients with brain or central nervous system (CNS) involvement, which develops in as many as half of patients with HER-positive MBC and is associated with shorter survival. In the HER2CLIMB trial, median progression-free survival was 7.6 months in patients with brain metastases compared with 5.4 months in the placebo group.

A follow-up exploratory analysis, which focused on 291 patients with brain metastases, found that adding tucatinib reduced the risk for intracranial progression by two thirds and death by almost half. In patients with active brain metastases, median progression-free survival reached 9.5 months vs 4.1 months in the placebo group. Those with stable metastases also benefited from tucatinib, with median progression-free survival of 13.9 vs 5.6 months in the placebo group.

On the basis of the results, the authors concluded that this randomized trial was the first to demonstrate improvements in both CNS progression–free survival and overall survival in patients with HER2-positive MBC and brain metastases.

Evolving options in the third-line setting and after

For third-line therapy and beyond, oncologists have an array of newer agents to choose from alongside longer-standing options — which include trastuzumab plus lapatinib, trastuzumab or lapatinib plus capecitabine, as well as T-DM1, if not given as second-line therapy.

According to Dr. McCann, the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan has been a particularly exciting addition to third-line treatment. In the phase 2 DESTINY-01 trial, more than 60% of a heavily pretreated population showed an objective response to trastuzumab deruxtecan, with a median response duration of almost 15 months and a median progression-free survival of 16.4 months. Longer-term follow-up results, presented in December at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed progression-free survival of 19.4 months and preliminary median overall survival of 24.6 months.

Neratinib, the second TKI to bridge the blood-brain barrier in HER2-positive disease, was also approved for third-line use; however, Sayeh Lavasani, MD, MS, said she is more likely to consider this agent later in the sequence, potentially in the fourth-line setting and beyond, given the more robust outcomes observed in the HER2CLIMB tucatinib trial.

“Neratinib improved progression-free survival and time to intervention for CNS metastasis but, unlike tucatinib, did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit,” remarked Dr. Lavasani, a medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

More specifically, the phase 3 NALA trial, which randomly assigned patients to receive neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine, reported progression-free survival of 8.8 months in the neratinib group compared with 6.6 months in the control arm but no significant gains in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; P = .2098).

The fourth recently approved drug, margetuximab, has not yet made a significant mark on sequencing decisions for Dr. McCann.

“Margetuximab could have been a potential game changer, but clinical trial results were underwhelming,” she said.

In the phase 3 randomized clinical SOPHIA trial, margetuximab plus chemotherapy prolonged median progression-free survival by just over 1 month compared with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. Preliminary overall survival data showed a slight, but not significant, benefit in the margetuximab group (21.6 vs 19.8 months).

For Dr. Lavasani, the presence of brain metastases is the most important consideration when weighing sequencing options. “For some of my patients with HER2-positive MBC, it’s ultimately disease progression in the brain that takes their life,” she said.

Aside from CNS metastases, specific sequencing choices may vary on the basis of drug-related tolerance as well as patient preferences. “It is critical to get a patient’s input in treatment selection,” Dr. Nanda remarked. “Given the number of effective treatments for HER2-positive MBC and the lack of data to guide how to sequence these regimens, it is important to ask patients what their preferences are.”

Dr. McCann agreed, noting that “a patient with HER2-positive MBC typically has a life expectancy measured in years, which is also why sequencing should be influenced by quality of life considerations.”

Convenience, side-effect profile, and financial toxicity should factor into clinical decision-making, according to Dr. Nanda. Some patients may, for instance, prefer a combination of tucatinib, capecitabine, and trastuzumab over trastuzumab deruxtecan to avoid hair loss and the risk for interstitial lung disease, which has been reported in more than 13% of patients, whereas others may prefer trastuzumab deruxtecan to avoid the possibility of diarrhea.

Taxanes come with a high risk for infusion reactions — which occur in about 30% of patients — and can cause neuropathy as well as hair loss and severe gastrointestinal side effects. In first-line care, Dr. McCann typically stops the taxane at some point for toxicity reasons and continues with trastuzumab plus pertuzumab until disease progression.

Even with an array of new options for treating metastatic HER2-positive disease, ultimately drug resistance does occur, Dr. Lavasani cautioned. Several ongoing trials are exploring new combinations of existing drugs to see whether those variations move the needle on survival outcomes. The HER2CLIMB-04 trial, for instance, is pairing tucatinib with trastuzumab deruxtecan, whereas HER2CLIMB-02 is pairing tucatinib with T-DM1.

But given progress in drug development in just the past few years, Lisa A. Carey, MD, deputy director of Clinical Sciences at the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, sees a promising future for treating metastatic HER2-positive disease. “There is so much going on in the HER2-positive MBC therapeutics space that almost every 6 months, oncologists have to regroup and reevaluate treatment and sequencing, which is a great position to be in,” Dr. Carey noted.

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

The landscape for therapies targeting HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has evolved rapidly in the past few years. In a 12-month window, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved four agents targeting human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)–positive MBC, starting with trastuzumab deruxtecan in December 2019, followed by neratinib and tucatinib a few months later, and margetuximab last December.

Although first-line therapy for the majority of patients continues to be the CLEOPATRA regimen — the monoclonal antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab plus a taxane, such as docetaxel or paclitaxel — the influx of agents approved in the metastatic setting has opened up new avenues for second-line therapy and beyond.

“We have been really fortunate to see a number of highly effective new therapies approved for HER2-positive MBC in the past year, and this has given us even more options to offer our patients,” remarked Rita Nanda, MD, director of the Breast Oncology Program and associate professor of medicine at University of Chicago Medicine.

What considerations do experts weigh when sequencing HER2-positive MBC?

For Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, the order largely depends on balancing two factors: regimens that will provide the best efficacy in terms of patient survival and quality of life. “In the metastatic setting, I know I’m going to end up using all of the available medications one after the other, so the order that allows patients to continue living their best life for as long as possible is essential,” commented Dr. McCann, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.

A new second-line option?

Before the wave of drug approvals for metastatic HER2-positive disease last year, oncologists routinely looked to trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) as second-line therapy.

But tucatinib may also now be considered in the second-line setting, after results from the HER2CLIMB trial. The decision between tucatinib and T-DM1 largely comes down to the presence or absence of brain metastases.

“T-DM1 is well-tolerated, so it’s still my go-to in the second-line setting unless my patient has a brain metastasis, in which case I opt for tucatinib,” Dr. McCann noted, adding that the HER2-specific oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) not only crosses the blood-brain barrier but is also effective in patients with untreated brain metastases.

In HER2CLIMB, tucatinib exhibited strong efficacy in patients with advanced HER2-positive disease, including those with previously treated or untreated brain metastases. The randomized controlled trial, which paired tucatinib with trastuzumab and capecitabine, showed median progression-free survival of 7.8 months in 410 patients with HER2-positive MBC compared with 5.6 months in the 202 patients receiving the placebo regimen. The tucatinib cohort showed an overall survival advantage compared with the placebo group (21.9 vs 17.4 months).

Perhaps the most notable finding occurred in patients with brain or central nervous system (CNS) involvement, which develops in as many as half of patients with HER-positive MBC and is associated with shorter survival. In the HER2CLIMB trial, median progression-free survival was 7.6 months in patients with brain metastases compared with 5.4 months in the placebo group.

A follow-up exploratory analysis, which focused on 291 patients with brain metastases, found that adding tucatinib reduced the risk for intracranial progression by two thirds and death by almost half. In patients with active brain metastases, median progression-free survival reached 9.5 months vs 4.1 months in the placebo group. Those with stable metastases also benefited from tucatinib, with median progression-free survival of 13.9 vs 5.6 months in the placebo group.

On the basis of the results, the authors concluded that this randomized trial was the first to demonstrate improvements in both CNS progression–free survival and overall survival in patients with HER2-positive MBC and brain metastases.

Evolving options in the third-line setting and after

For third-line therapy and beyond, oncologists have an array of newer agents to choose from alongside longer-standing options — which include trastuzumab plus lapatinib, trastuzumab or lapatinib plus capecitabine, as well as T-DM1, if not given as second-line therapy.

According to Dr. McCann, the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan has been a particularly exciting addition to third-line treatment. In the phase 2 DESTINY-01 trial, more than 60% of a heavily pretreated population showed an objective response to trastuzumab deruxtecan, with a median response duration of almost 15 months and a median progression-free survival of 16.4 months. Longer-term follow-up results, presented in December at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed progression-free survival of 19.4 months and preliminary median overall survival of 24.6 months.

Neratinib, the second TKI to bridge the blood-brain barrier in HER2-positive disease, was also approved for third-line use; however, Sayeh Lavasani, MD, MS, said she is more likely to consider this agent later in the sequence, potentially in the fourth-line setting and beyond, given the more robust outcomes observed in the HER2CLIMB tucatinib trial.

“Neratinib improved progression-free survival and time to intervention for CNS metastasis but, unlike tucatinib, did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit,” remarked Dr. Lavasani, a medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

More specifically, the phase 3 NALA trial, which randomly assigned patients to receive neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine, reported progression-free survival of 8.8 months in the neratinib group compared with 6.6 months in the control arm but no significant gains in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; P = .2098).

The fourth recently approved drug, margetuximab, has not yet made a significant mark on sequencing decisions for Dr. McCann.

“Margetuximab could have been a potential game changer, but clinical trial results were underwhelming,” she said.

In the phase 3 randomized clinical SOPHIA trial, margetuximab plus chemotherapy prolonged median progression-free survival by just over 1 month compared with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. Preliminary overall survival data showed a slight, but not significant, benefit in the margetuximab group (21.6 vs 19.8 months).

For Dr. Lavasani, the presence of brain metastases is the most important consideration when weighing sequencing options. “For some of my patients with HER2-positive MBC, it’s ultimately disease progression in the brain that takes their life,” she said.

Aside from CNS metastases, specific sequencing choices may vary on the basis of drug-related tolerance as well as patient preferences. “It is critical to get a patient’s input in treatment selection,” Dr. Nanda remarked. “Given the number of effective treatments for HER2-positive MBC and the lack of data to guide how to sequence these regimens, it is important to ask patients what their preferences are.”

Dr. McCann agreed, noting that “a patient with HER2-positive MBC typically has a life expectancy measured in years, which is also why sequencing should be influenced by quality of life considerations.”

Convenience, side-effect profile, and financial toxicity should factor into clinical decision-making, according to Dr. Nanda. Some patients may, for instance, prefer a combination of tucatinib, capecitabine, and trastuzumab over trastuzumab deruxtecan to avoid hair loss and the risk for interstitial lung disease, which has been reported in more than 13% of patients, whereas others may prefer trastuzumab deruxtecan to avoid the possibility of diarrhea.

Taxanes come with a high risk for infusion reactions — which occur in about 30% of patients — and can cause neuropathy as well as hair loss and severe gastrointestinal side effects. In first-line care, Dr. McCann typically stops the taxane at some point for toxicity reasons and continues with trastuzumab plus pertuzumab until disease progression.

Even with an array of new options for treating metastatic HER2-positive disease, ultimately drug resistance does occur, Dr. Lavasani cautioned. Several ongoing trials are exploring new combinations of existing drugs to see whether those variations move the needle on survival outcomes. The HER2CLIMB-04 trial, for instance, is pairing tucatinib with trastuzumab deruxtecan, whereas HER2CLIMB-02 is pairing tucatinib with T-DM1.

But given progress in drug development in just the past few years, Lisa A. Carey, MD, deputy director of Clinical Sciences at the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, sees a promising future for treating metastatic HER2-positive disease. “There is so much going on in the HER2-positive MBC therapeutics space that almost every 6 months, oncologists have to regroup and reevaluate treatment and sequencing, which is a great position to be in,” Dr. Carey noted.

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

The landscape for therapies targeting HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has evolved rapidly in the past few years. In a 12-month window, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved four agents targeting human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)–positive MBC, starting with trastuzumab deruxtecan in December 2019, followed by neratinib and tucatinib a few months later, and margetuximab last December.

Although first-line therapy for the majority of patients continues to be the CLEOPATRA regimen — the monoclonal antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab plus a taxane, such as docetaxel or paclitaxel — the influx of agents approved in the metastatic setting has opened up new avenues for second-line therapy and beyond.

“We have been really fortunate to see a number of highly effective new therapies approved for HER2-positive MBC in the past year, and this has given us even more options to offer our patients,” remarked Rita Nanda, MD, director of the Breast Oncology Program and associate professor of medicine at University of Chicago Medicine.

What considerations do experts weigh when sequencing HER2-positive MBC?

For Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, the order largely depends on balancing two factors: regimens that will provide the best efficacy in terms of patient survival and quality of life. “In the metastatic setting, I know I’m going to end up using all of the available medications one after the other, so the order that allows patients to continue living their best life for as long as possible is essential,” commented Dr. McCann, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.

A new second-line option?

Before the wave of drug approvals for metastatic HER2-positive disease last year, oncologists routinely looked to trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) as second-line therapy.

But tucatinib may also now be considered in the second-line setting, after results from the HER2CLIMB trial. The decision between tucatinib and T-DM1 largely comes down to the presence or absence of brain metastases.

“T-DM1 is well-tolerated, so it’s still my go-to in the second-line setting unless my patient has a brain metastasis, in which case I opt for tucatinib,” Dr. McCann noted, adding that the HER2-specific oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) not only crosses the blood-brain barrier but is also effective in patients with untreated brain metastases.

In HER2CLIMB, tucatinib exhibited strong efficacy in patients with advanced HER2-positive disease, including those with previously treated or untreated brain metastases. The randomized controlled trial, which paired tucatinib with trastuzumab and capecitabine, showed median progression-free survival of 7.8 months in 410 patients with HER2-positive MBC compared with 5.6 months in the 202 patients receiving the placebo regimen. The tucatinib cohort showed an overall survival advantage compared with the placebo group (21.9 vs 17.4 months).

Perhaps the most notable finding occurred in patients with brain or central nervous system (CNS) involvement, which develops in as many as half of patients with HER-positive MBC and is associated with shorter survival. In the HER2CLIMB trial, median progression-free survival was 7.6 months in patients with brain metastases compared with 5.4 months in the placebo group.

A follow-up exploratory analysis, which focused on 291 patients with brain metastases, found that adding tucatinib reduced the risk for intracranial progression by two thirds and death by almost half. In patients with active brain metastases, median progression-free survival reached 9.5 months vs 4.1 months in the placebo group. Those with stable metastases also benefited from tucatinib, with median progression-free survival of 13.9 vs 5.6 months in the placebo group.

On the basis of the results, the authors concluded that this randomized trial was the first to demonstrate improvements in both CNS progression–free survival and overall survival in patients with HER2-positive MBC and brain metastases.

Evolving options in the third-line setting and after

For third-line therapy and beyond, oncologists have an array of newer agents to choose from alongside longer-standing options — which include trastuzumab plus lapatinib, trastuzumab or lapatinib plus capecitabine, as well as T-DM1, if not given as second-line therapy.

According to Dr. McCann, the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan has been a particularly exciting addition to third-line treatment. In the phase 2 DESTINY-01 trial, more than 60% of a heavily pretreated population showed an objective response to trastuzumab deruxtecan, with a median response duration of almost 15 months and a median progression-free survival of 16.4 months. Longer-term follow-up results, presented in December at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed progression-free survival of 19.4 months and preliminary median overall survival of 24.6 months.

Neratinib, the second TKI to bridge the blood-brain barrier in HER2-positive disease, was also approved for third-line use; however, Sayeh Lavasani, MD, MS, said she is more likely to consider this agent later in the sequence, potentially in the fourth-line setting and beyond, given the more robust outcomes observed in the HER2CLIMB tucatinib trial.

“Neratinib improved progression-free survival and time to intervention for CNS metastasis but, unlike tucatinib, did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit,” remarked Dr. Lavasani, a medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

More specifically, the phase 3 NALA trial, which randomly assigned patients to receive neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine, reported progression-free survival of 8.8 months in the neratinib group compared with 6.6 months in the control arm but no significant gains in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; P = .2098).

The fourth recently approved drug, margetuximab, has not yet made a significant mark on sequencing decisions for Dr. McCann.

“Margetuximab could have been a potential game changer, but clinical trial results were underwhelming,” she said.

In the phase 3 randomized clinical SOPHIA trial, margetuximab plus chemotherapy prolonged median progression-free survival by just over 1 month compared with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. Preliminary overall survival data showed a slight, but not significant, benefit in the margetuximab group (21.6 vs 19.8 months).

For Dr. Lavasani, the presence of brain metastases is the most important consideration when weighing sequencing options. “For some of my patients with HER2-positive MBC, it’s ultimately disease progression in the brain that takes their life,” she said.

Aside from CNS metastases, specific sequencing choices may vary on the basis of drug-related tolerance as well as patient preferences. “It is critical to get a patient’s input in treatment selection,” Dr. Nanda remarked. “Given the number of effective treatments for HER2-positive MBC and the lack of data to guide how to sequence these regimens, it is important to ask patients what their preferences are.”

Dr. McCann agreed, noting that “a patient with HER2-positive MBC typically has a life expectancy measured in years, which is also why sequencing should be influenced by quality of life considerations.”

Convenience, side-effect profile, and financial toxicity should factor into clinical decision-making, according to Dr. Nanda. Some patients may, for instance, prefer a combination of tucatinib, capecitabine, and trastuzumab over trastuzumab deruxtecan to avoid hair loss and the risk for interstitial lung disease, which has been reported in more than 13% of patients, whereas others may prefer trastuzumab deruxtecan to avoid the possibility of diarrhea.

Taxanes come with a high risk for infusion reactions — which occur in about 30% of patients — and can cause neuropathy as well as hair loss and severe gastrointestinal side effects. In first-line care, Dr. McCann typically stops the taxane at some point for toxicity reasons and continues with trastuzumab plus pertuzumab until disease progression.

Even with an array of new options for treating metastatic HER2-positive disease, ultimately drug resistance does occur, Dr. Lavasani cautioned. Several ongoing trials are exploring new combinations of existing drugs to see whether those variations move the needle on survival outcomes. The HER2CLIMB-04 trial, for instance, is pairing tucatinib with trastuzumab deruxtecan, whereas HER2CLIMB-02 is pairing tucatinib with T-DM1.

But given progress in drug development in just the past few years, Lisa A. Carey, MD, deputy director of Clinical Sciences at the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, sees a promising future for treating metastatic HER2-positive disease. “There is so much going on in the HER2-positive MBC therapeutics space that almost every 6 months, oncologists have to regroup and reevaluate treatment and sequencing, which is a great position to be in,” Dr. Carey noted.

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

Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) face an elevated risk of severe illness or dying from COVID-19. Given the slow rollout of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines and new, more infectious viral variants circulating in the United States, oncologists will face a challenging balancing act for the foreseeable future: sustaining patients› MBC care while safeguarding them from COVID. The scale leans heavily toward continuing treatment, experts say.

“If we stop treatment for metastatic breast cancer, death will occur quickly,” Fatima F. Cardoso, MD, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Centre in Lisbon, Portugal, stated this past August in a Medscape perspective.

Joanne Mortimer, MD, director of Women’s Cancer Programs at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center near Los Angeles, expressed a similar sentiment. “Having MBC is worse than getting COVID,” she told Medscape. “We can’t stop treating patients with MBC because of concerns of exposure.”

But maintaining treatment does not mean business as usual. Oncologists have had to modify their pre-pandemic practices to some degree, and that degree largely depends on local COVID conditions.

“Weighing the risk of treatment with the risk of contracting the virus means that many places have carried on treating metastatic breast cancer in a more thoughtful, careful way,” said Jill Dietz, MD, president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. “That means focusing on high-value treatments for patients with the goal of maximizing their outcomes and quality of life while limiting in-person visits and potentially unnecessary elements of care.”

To guide this more careful approach, Dr. Dietz and colleagues from the recently formed COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium published recommendations in April 2020 to account for different disease types and severities. These recommendations align closely with those from Cardoso and colleagues in Europe, also published last April.

Although issued early in the pandemic when there was greater uncertainty about viral transmission, adverse outcomes, and treatment for COVID-19, these recommendations still hold almost a year later.

“The framework has proven to be timeless in that it can help institutions where they are in the pandemic,” Dr. Dietz said.

The recommendations at play

For MBC, in particular, Dr. Dietz and colleagues focused on patients who need systemic care but whose treatment can be modified to keep them home more. The modifications include prescribing oral agents such as capecitabine, vinorelbine, and cyclophosphamide to minimize visits to the hospital or infusion suite.

To limit adverse events associated with these oral drugs, Dr. Dietz and colleagues also recommended reducing the dose when possible. For instance, research shows that lowering the dose of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in patients with HR+/HER2-negative MBC does not diminish efficacy.

When oral agents are not an option, Dr. Dietz and colleagues suggested stretching out the intervals for chemotherapy infusions or injections. Data show that trastuzumab and pertuzumab injections for metastatic HER2-positive tumors «may reasonably be administered at longer intervals,» such as 4 weeks instead of 3 weeks.

The extent to which oncologists have applied these recommendations hinges on two factors: the local severity of COVID-19 cases and institution-specific policies.

For some oncologists, the pandemic has largely left treatment decisions untouched. “COVID-19 has only minimally impacted my practice,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the Breast Oncology Program and associate professor of medicine at University of Chicago Medicine.

Dr. Nanda recalled her concerns in the early days of the pandemic. As the nation watched COVID cases surge across New York City, Chicagoans prepared for the worst, fashioning the McCormick Place Convention Center into a field hospital for COVID patients.

“But fortunately, we were never overwhelmed at the University of Chicago and never needed to use the convention center,” Dr. Nanda said. “We did not have to alter or limit the type of therapy patients with MBC could receive.”

The main changes described by Dr. Nanda at the University of Chicago have centered around limiting the flow of traffic within the infusion suite or hospital by implementing prescreening checks to catch patients with COVID symptoms, keeping waiting rooms empty and infusion centers socially distanced, and having patients come in for appointments solo. The university’s home phlebotomy service also came in handy. Implemented before the pandemic, this service allowed patients with MBC to get their labs done at home before coming in for treatment.

“Overall, with social distancing, mask wearing, and limiting who comes in to the clinic, we have been able to keep patients and staff safe without altering treatment-specific decisions,” Dr. Nanda said.

Streamlining the foot traffic in the cancer center also worked well for Lisa A. Carey, MD, chief of the Division of Hematology/Oncology and deputy director of clinical sciences at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. “The truth is, oncological principles of care are still in place,” said Dr. Carey, the Richardson and Marilyn Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor in Breast Cancer Research. “COVID hasn’t altered those; it has only thrown a little wrench in how we deliver that care.”

Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the Department of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, has had to walk a tighter rope to protect her patients with MBC, as COVID cases began to soar in LA county last fall.

To keep patients with MBC home more, Dr. McCann said many chose oral cytotoxic chemotherapies over infusional therapies. Some patients with HER2-positive MBC, for instance, opted for the oral combination neratinib + capecitabine over a trastuzumab-deruxtecan infusion, and others with triple-negative tumors chose capecitabine over a taxane.

At City of Hope, Mortimer has had a different experience of LA county’s COVID surge. Because the center only treats patients with cancer, “we have not had huge numbers of patients with COVID or had to significantly modify our practice outside of screening patients who come in and doing fewer scans compared to pre-COVID,” she said. With these precautions, “we have had no internal transmission of COVID within our institution.”

Still, patients with MBC have gotten COVID, and treating both illnesses does complicate decision-making. In some cases, Mortimer has postponed cancer treatment for patients who can delay for a few weeks while they recover from COVID. But patients who need to continue MBC treatment receive care in a separate unit, and Mortimer considers prescribing Eli Lilly’s recently approved antibody therapy bamlanivimab to treat COVID symptoms. “For each situation, we can always page our infectious disease experts to address any concerns or questions,” Dr. Mortimer said.

The MBC and COVID toll

The biggest hurdle for patients with MBC has been less about treatment decisions and more about handling the psychological toll of the pandemic, according to Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

“These are my personal observations, but I’ve seen how much more stressful it is to have metastatic breast cancer during the pandemic,” said Dr. Shapiro, who worries that fear of COVID may fuel or exacerbate patients’ depression and anxiety. “Patients can’t have family and friends by their side during infusions or appointments, and many feel isolated because of the risk of exposure.”

Because most patients with MBC still need in-person care such as exams, blood draws, or chemotherapy infusions, Dr. McCann has found that many of her patients “are afraid to come to a medical center and have been delaying appointments, imaging, and procedures.”

The psychological toll of treating breast cancer during the pandemic has touched oncologists as well. A recent survey found that burnout scores were significantly higher among physicians whose patients experienced delays in care, including chemotherapy or specialty consultations.

Getting patients vaccinated will improve protection and hopefully lessen fears surrounding COVID infection and transmission. Preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network›s COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee state that patients with cancer «should be prioritized for vaccination.»

Dr. McCann agreed. “I’ve recommended COVID-19 vaccination to all of my patients with MBC,” she said. But because a lot of these therapies suppress the immune system to some degree, “I’ll recommend a period of time for vaccination in which the immune system is expected to have recovered, such as in the days prior to a dose of chemotherapy.”

Overall, according to Dr. Carey, institutional responses to treating MBC during the pandemic have been very similar: The key has been that “no one is keeping secrets,” she said. “Our global oncology community is sharing and adopting best practices. Our focus has been doing right by our patients.”

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

Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) face an elevated risk of severe illness or dying from COVID-19. Given the slow rollout of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines and new, more infectious viral variants circulating in the United States, oncologists will face a challenging balancing act for the foreseeable future: sustaining patients› MBC care while safeguarding them from COVID. The scale leans heavily toward continuing treatment, experts say.

“If we stop treatment for metastatic breast cancer, death will occur quickly,” Fatima F. Cardoso, MD, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Centre in Lisbon, Portugal, stated this past August in a Medscape perspective.

Joanne Mortimer, MD, director of Women’s Cancer Programs at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center near Los Angeles, expressed a similar sentiment. “Having MBC is worse than getting COVID,” she told Medscape. “We can’t stop treating patients with MBC because of concerns of exposure.”

But maintaining treatment does not mean business as usual. Oncologists have had to modify their pre-pandemic practices to some degree, and that degree largely depends on local COVID conditions.

“Weighing the risk of treatment with the risk of contracting the virus means that many places have carried on treating metastatic breast cancer in a more thoughtful, careful way,” said Jill Dietz, MD, president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. “That means focusing on high-value treatments for patients with the goal of maximizing their outcomes and quality of life while limiting in-person visits and potentially unnecessary elements of care.”

To guide this more careful approach, Dr. Dietz and colleagues from the recently formed COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium published recommendations in April 2020 to account for different disease types and severities. These recommendations align closely with those from Cardoso and colleagues in Europe, also published last April.

Although issued early in the pandemic when there was greater uncertainty about viral transmission, adverse outcomes, and treatment for COVID-19, these recommendations still hold almost a year later.

“The framework has proven to be timeless in that it can help institutions where they are in the pandemic,” Dr. Dietz said.

The recommendations at play

For MBC, in particular, Dr. Dietz and colleagues focused on patients who need systemic care but whose treatment can be modified to keep them home more. The modifications include prescribing oral agents such as capecitabine, vinorelbine, and cyclophosphamide to minimize visits to the hospital or infusion suite.

To limit adverse events associated with these oral drugs, Dr. Dietz and colleagues also recommended reducing the dose when possible. For instance, research shows that lowering the dose of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in patients with HR+/HER2-negative MBC does not diminish efficacy.

When oral agents are not an option, Dr. Dietz and colleagues suggested stretching out the intervals for chemotherapy infusions or injections. Data show that trastuzumab and pertuzumab injections for metastatic HER2-positive tumors «may reasonably be administered at longer intervals,» such as 4 weeks instead of 3 weeks.

The extent to which oncologists have applied these recommendations hinges on two factors: the local severity of COVID-19 cases and institution-specific policies.

For some oncologists, the pandemic has largely left treatment decisions untouched. “COVID-19 has only minimally impacted my practice,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the Breast Oncology Program and associate professor of medicine at University of Chicago Medicine.

Dr. Nanda recalled her concerns in the early days of the pandemic. As the nation watched COVID cases surge across New York City, Chicagoans prepared for the worst, fashioning the McCormick Place Convention Center into a field hospital for COVID patients.

“But fortunately, we were never overwhelmed at the University of Chicago and never needed to use the convention center,” Dr. Nanda said. “We did not have to alter or limit the type of therapy patients with MBC could receive.”

The main changes described by Dr. Nanda at the University of Chicago have centered around limiting the flow of traffic within the infusion suite or hospital by implementing prescreening checks to catch patients with COVID symptoms, keeping waiting rooms empty and infusion centers socially distanced, and having patients come in for appointments solo. The university’s home phlebotomy service also came in handy. Implemented before the pandemic, this service allowed patients with MBC to get their labs done at home before coming in for treatment.

“Overall, with social distancing, mask wearing, and limiting who comes in to the clinic, we have been able to keep patients and staff safe without altering treatment-specific decisions,” Dr. Nanda said.

Streamlining the foot traffic in the cancer center also worked well for Lisa A. Carey, MD, chief of the Division of Hematology/Oncology and deputy director of clinical sciences at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. “The truth is, oncological principles of care are still in place,” said Dr. Carey, the Richardson and Marilyn Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor in Breast Cancer Research. “COVID hasn’t altered those; it has only thrown a little wrench in how we deliver that care.”

Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the Department of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, has had to walk a tighter rope to protect her patients with MBC, as COVID cases began to soar in LA county last fall.

To keep patients with MBC home more, Dr. McCann said many chose oral cytotoxic chemotherapies over infusional therapies. Some patients with HER2-positive MBC, for instance, opted for the oral combination neratinib + capecitabine over a trastuzumab-deruxtecan infusion, and others with triple-negative tumors chose capecitabine over a taxane.

At City of Hope, Mortimer has had a different experience of LA county’s COVID surge. Because the center only treats patients with cancer, “we have not had huge numbers of patients with COVID or had to significantly modify our practice outside of screening patients who come in and doing fewer scans compared to pre-COVID,” she said. With these precautions, “we have had no internal transmission of COVID within our institution.”

Still, patients with MBC have gotten COVID, and treating both illnesses does complicate decision-making. In some cases, Mortimer has postponed cancer treatment for patients who can delay for a few weeks while they recover from COVID. But patients who need to continue MBC treatment receive care in a separate unit, and Mortimer considers prescribing Eli Lilly’s recently approved antibody therapy bamlanivimab to treat COVID symptoms. “For each situation, we can always page our infectious disease experts to address any concerns or questions,” Dr. Mortimer said.

The MBC and COVID toll

The biggest hurdle for patients with MBC has been less about treatment decisions and more about handling the psychological toll of the pandemic, according to Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

“These are my personal observations, but I’ve seen how much more stressful it is to have metastatic breast cancer during the pandemic,” said Dr. Shapiro, who worries that fear of COVID may fuel or exacerbate patients’ depression and anxiety. “Patients can’t have family and friends by their side during infusions or appointments, and many feel isolated because of the risk of exposure.”

Because most patients with MBC still need in-person care such as exams, blood draws, or chemotherapy infusions, Dr. McCann has found that many of her patients “are afraid to come to a medical center and have been delaying appointments, imaging, and procedures.”

The psychological toll of treating breast cancer during the pandemic has touched oncologists as well. A recent survey found that burnout scores were significantly higher among physicians whose patients experienced delays in care, including chemotherapy or specialty consultations.

Getting patients vaccinated will improve protection and hopefully lessen fears surrounding COVID infection and transmission. Preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network›s COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee state that patients with cancer «should be prioritized for vaccination.»

Dr. McCann agreed. “I’ve recommended COVID-19 vaccination to all of my patients with MBC,” she said. But because a lot of these therapies suppress the immune system to some degree, “I’ll recommend a period of time for vaccination in which the immune system is expected to have recovered, such as in the days prior to a dose of chemotherapy.”

Overall, according to Dr. Carey, institutional responses to treating MBC during the pandemic have been very similar: The key has been that “no one is keeping secrets,” she said. “Our global oncology community is sharing and adopting best practices. Our focus has been doing right by our patients.”

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

Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) face an elevated risk of severe illness or dying from COVID-19. Given the slow rollout of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines and new, more infectious viral variants circulating in the United States, oncologists will face a challenging balancing act for the foreseeable future: sustaining patients› MBC care while safeguarding them from COVID. The scale leans heavily toward continuing treatment, experts say.

“If we stop treatment for metastatic breast cancer, death will occur quickly,” Fatima F. Cardoso, MD, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Centre in Lisbon, Portugal, stated this past August in a Medscape perspective.

Joanne Mortimer, MD, director of Women’s Cancer Programs at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center near Los Angeles, expressed a similar sentiment. “Having MBC is worse than getting COVID,” she told Medscape. “We can’t stop treating patients with MBC because of concerns of exposure.”

But maintaining treatment does not mean business as usual. Oncologists have had to modify their pre-pandemic practices to some degree, and that degree largely depends on local COVID conditions.

“Weighing the risk of treatment with the risk of contracting the virus means that many places have carried on treating metastatic breast cancer in a more thoughtful, careful way,” said Jill Dietz, MD, president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. “That means focusing on high-value treatments for patients with the goal of maximizing their outcomes and quality of life while limiting in-person visits and potentially unnecessary elements of care.”

To guide this more careful approach, Dr. Dietz and colleagues from the recently formed COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium published recommendations in April 2020 to account for different disease types and severities. These recommendations align closely with those from Cardoso and colleagues in Europe, also published last April.

Although issued early in the pandemic when there was greater uncertainty about viral transmission, adverse outcomes, and treatment for COVID-19, these recommendations still hold almost a year later.

“The framework has proven to be timeless in that it can help institutions where they are in the pandemic,” Dr. Dietz said.

The recommendations at play

For MBC, in particular, Dr. Dietz and colleagues focused on patients who need systemic care but whose treatment can be modified to keep them home more. The modifications include prescribing oral agents such as capecitabine, vinorelbine, and cyclophosphamide to minimize visits to the hospital or infusion suite.

To limit adverse events associated with these oral drugs, Dr. Dietz and colleagues also recommended reducing the dose when possible. For instance, research shows that lowering the dose of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in patients with HR+/HER2-negative MBC does not diminish efficacy.

When oral agents are not an option, Dr. Dietz and colleagues suggested stretching out the intervals for chemotherapy infusions or injections. Data show that trastuzumab and pertuzumab injections for metastatic HER2-positive tumors «may reasonably be administered at longer intervals,» such as 4 weeks instead of 3 weeks.

The extent to which oncologists have applied these recommendations hinges on two factors: the local severity of COVID-19 cases and institution-specific policies.

For some oncologists, the pandemic has largely left treatment decisions untouched. “COVID-19 has only minimally impacted my practice,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the Breast Oncology Program and associate professor of medicine at University of Chicago Medicine.

Dr. Nanda recalled her concerns in the early days of the pandemic. As the nation watched COVID cases surge across New York City, Chicagoans prepared for the worst, fashioning the McCormick Place Convention Center into a field hospital for COVID patients.

“But fortunately, we were never overwhelmed at the University of Chicago and never needed to use the convention center,” Dr. Nanda said. “We did not have to alter or limit the type of therapy patients with MBC could receive.”

The main changes described by Dr. Nanda at the University of Chicago have centered around limiting the flow of traffic within the infusion suite or hospital by implementing prescreening checks to catch patients with COVID symptoms, keeping waiting rooms empty and infusion centers socially distanced, and having patients come in for appointments solo. The university’s home phlebotomy service also came in handy. Implemented before the pandemic, this service allowed patients with MBC to get their labs done at home before coming in for treatment.

“Overall, with social distancing, mask wearing, and limiting who comes in to the clinic, we have been able to keep patients and staff safe without altering treatment-specific decisions,” Dr. Nanda said.

Streamlining the foot traffic in the cancer center also worked well for Lisa A. Carey, MD, chief of the Division of Hematology/Oncology and deputy director of clinical sciences at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. “The truth is, oncological principles of care are still in place,” said Dr. Carey, the Richardson and Marilyn Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor in Breast Cancer Research. “COVID hasn’t altered those; it has only thrown a little wrench in how we deliver that care.”

Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the Department of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, has had to walk a tighter rope to protect her patients with MBC, as COVID cases began to soar in LA county last fall.

To keep patients with MBC home more, Dr. McCann said many chose oral cytotoxic chemotherapies over infusional therapies. Some patients with HER2-positive MBC, for instance, opted for the oral combination neratinib + capecitabine over a trastuzumab-deruxtecan infusion, and others with triple-negative tumors chose capecitabine over a taxane.

At City of Hope, Mortimer has had a different experience of LA county’s COVID surge. Because the center only treats patients with cancer, “we have not had huge numbers of patients with COVID or had to significantly modify our practice outside of screening patients who come in and doing fewer scans compared to pre-COVID,” she said. With these precautions, “we have had no internal transmission of COVID within our institution.”

Still, patients with MBC have gotten COVID, and treating both illnesses does complicate decision-making. In some cases, Mortimer has postponed cancer treatment for patients who can delay for a few weeks while they recover from COVID. But patients who need to continue MBC treatment receive care in a separate unit, and Mortimer considers prescribing Eli Lilly’s recently approved antibody therapy bamlanivimab to treat COVID symptoms. “For each situation, we can always page our infectious disease experts to address any concerns or questions,” Dr. Mortimer said.

The MBC and COVID toll

The biggest hurdle for patients with MBC has been less about treatment decisions and more about handling the psychological toll of the pandemic, according to Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

“These are my personal observations, but I’ve seen how much more stressful it is to have metastatic breast cancer during the pandemic,” said Dr. Shapiro, who worries that fear of COVID may fuel or exacerbate patients’ depression and anxiety. “Patients can’t have family and friends by their side during infusions or appointments, and many feel isolated because of the risk of exposure.”

Because most patients with MBC still need in-person care such as exams, blood draws, or chemotherapy infusions, Dr. McCann has found that many of her patients “are afraid to come to a medical center and have been delaying appointments, imaging, and procedures.”

The psychological toll of treating breast cancer during the pandemic has touched oncologists as well. A recent survey found that burnout scores were significantly higher among physicians whose patients experienced delays in care, including chemotherapy or specialty consultations.

Getting patients vaccinated will improve protection and hopefully lessen fears surrounding COVID infection and transmission. Preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network›s COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee state that patients with cancer «should be prioritized for vaccination.»

Dr. McCann agreed. “I’ve recommended COVID-19 vaccination to all of my patients with MBC,” she said. But because a lot of these therapies suppress the immune system to some degree, “I’ll recommend a period of time for vaccination in which the immune system is expected to have recovered, such as in the days prior to a dose of chemotherapy.”

Overall, according to Dr. Carey, institutional responses to treating MBC during the pandemic have been very similar: The key has been that “no one is keeping secrets,” she said. “Our global oncology community is sharing and adopting best practices. Our focus has been doing right by our patients.”

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

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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