Federal Practitioner

A few years ago, Kim Lori Sandler, MD, realized many patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer had never been screened for the disease — they received CT scans only because they were symptomatic.

But Dr. Sandler, a radiologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, could see in medical charts that most of these patients had been eligible for a screening before becoming symptomatic. And for women, most had received decades worth of mammograms. She saw an opportunity and launched a study to find out if an intervention would work.

Low-dose CT and mammography services often are available in the same imaging facility, so women who qualified for a lung cancer screening were offered the scan during their mammography visit. Over a 3-year period, monthly rates of lung scans in women rose by 50% at one facility and 36% at the other.

“What we found is that women are really receptive, if you talk to them about it,” Dr. Sandler said. “I don’t think that lung cancer is thought of as a disease in women.”

Although lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, a recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine found only 18% of eligible patients were screened in 2022, a far cry from the rates of 72% for colon cancer — which itself falls short of goals from US medical groups like the American Cancer Society (ACS). Among those eligible, rates of lung screenings were lowest among younger people without comorbid conditions, who did not have health insurance or a usual source of care, and those living in southern states and states that did not expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act.

But researchers and clinicians, from those working in an urban health center for the homeless to clinics in the poorest counties in the tobacco belt, have used strategies to raise their rates of screening for lung cancer.

Getting patients screened is lifesaving: 27% of people with lung cancer survive 5 years after diagnosis. But the survival rate rises to 63% when cases are diagnosed at an early stage.
 

Increasing Uptake

The formal recommendation to use low-dose chest CT to screen for lung cancer is only a decade old. The approach was first endorsed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the basis of an influential trial that found such testing was linked to a 20% reduction in mortality from the disease. Updated 2021 USPSTF guidelines call for annual screening of people aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year history of smoking and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

But implementing the recommendation is not always simple. Unlike a colorectal or breast cancer screening, which is recommended primarily on patient age, eligibility for a lung cancer screening requires calculating pack-years of smoking, and, for past smokers, knowledge of when they quit.

The structured fields in most electronic medical records (EMRs) inquire about current or past use of cigarettes and the number of daily packs smoked. But few EMRs can calculate when a patient starts smoking two cigarettes a day but then increases to a pack a day and cuts down again. EMRs also do not track when a patient has stopped smoking permanently. Individual clinicians or health systems must identify patients who are eligible for screening, but the lack of automated calculations makes that job more difficult.

Dr. Sandler and colleagues turned to the informatics team at Vanderbilt to develop a natural language processing approach that extracts smoking data directly from clinician notes instead of using standard variables in their EMR.

The number of patients identified as needing a screening using the algorithm nearly doubled from baseline, from 5887 to 10,231 over a 3-year period, according to results from another study that Dr. Sandler published.

Although the algorithm may occasionally flag someone who does not need screening as eligible, “you can always have a conversation with the patient to determine if they actually meet eligibility criteria,” Dr. Sandler said.
 

Patient Navigators to the Rescue?

About a decade ago, Travis Baggett, MD, MPH, an associate professor of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, received pilot funding from the ACS to study cancer epidemiology among patients at Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP), which serves nearly 10,000 patients at a variety of Boston-area clinics each year.

“We found that both the incidence and mortality rates for lung cancer were more than twofold higher than in the general population,” Dr. Baggett, who is also the director of research at BHCHP, said.

He also discovered that BHCHP patients were diagnosed at significantly later stages than people in the general population for malignancies like breast and colorectal cancer.

Screening for lung cancer was a new recommendation at the time. With additional funding from the ACS, he launched a clinical trial in 2020 that randomized patients who were eligible for lung cancer screening to either work with a patient navigator or receive usual care.

The navigators eased the burden on primary care clinicians: They facilitated shared decision-making visits, helped participants make and attend appointments for low-dose CT, assisted with transportation, and arranged follow-up as needed.

The 3-year study found 43% of patients who received navigation services underwent screening for lung cancer, compared with 9% in the usual-care arm. Participants said the navigators played a critical role in educating them about the importance of screening, coordinating care, and providing emotional support.

“At the root of it all, it was quite clear that one thing that made the navigator successful was their interpersonal qualities and having someone that the patient could trust to help guide them through the process,” Dr. Baggett said.

The navigator program, however, stopped when the funding for the study ended.

But another health system has implemented navigators in a sustainable way through a quality improvement project. Michael Gieske, MD, director of lung cancer screening at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Kentucky, starts his Friday morning meeting with a multidisciplinary group, including a thoracic surgeon, radiologist, pulmonologist, and several screening nurse navigators. They review the week’s chest CTs, with approximately one-third from patients who underwent lung cancer screening.

Nurse navigators at St. Elizabeth Healthcare follow up with any patient whose scan is suspicious for lung cancer and guide them through the process of seeing specialists and obtaining additional testing.

“They essentially hold the patient’s hand through this scary time in their life and make sure that everything flows smoothly and efficiently,” said Dr. Gieske, a family medicine physician.

St. Elizabeth’s program also draws on several evidence-based strategies used for other cancer screening programs, such as patient and provider education and quarterly feedback to their 194 primary care clinicians on rates of lung cancer screening among their eligible patients.

Several requirements for reimbursement for a lung cancer screening from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services can also serve as barriers to getting patients screened: Clinicians must identify who is eligible, provide tobacco cessation counseling, and document the shared decision-making process.

To streamline the steps, St. Elizabeth’s clinicians use an EMR smart set that reminds clinicians to verify smoking history and helps them document the required counseling.

Last year, 47% of eligible patients received their recommended screening, and Dr. Gieske said he expects even more improvement.

“We’re on track this year to complete 60% uptake if things continue,” he said, adding that 76% of the new cases of lung cancer are now diagnosed in stage I, with only 5% diagnosed in stage IV.

Dr. Gieske has shared his experience with many clinics in Appalachia, home to some of the highest rates of mortality from lung cancer in the country. A major part of his role with the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance is helping educate primary care clinicians in the region about the importance of early detection of lung cancer.

“I think one of the most important things is just to convey a message of hope,” he said. “We’re trying to get the good word out there that if you screen individuals, you’re going to catch it early, when you have an extremely high chance of curing the lung cancer.”

Dr. Baggett reported support from grants from the ACS and the Massachusetts General Hospital Research Scholars Program. Dr. Sandler and Dr. Gieske reported no financial conflicts.

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

A few years ago, Kim Lori Sandler, MD, realized many patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer had never been screened for the disease — they received CT scans only because they were symptomatic.

But Dr. Sandler, a radiologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, could see in medical charts that most of these patients had been eligible for a screening before becoming symptomatic. And for women, most had received decades worth of mammograms. She saw an opportunity and launched a study to find out if an intervention would work.

Low-dose CT and mammography services often are available in the same imaging facility, so women who qualified for a lung cancer screening were offered the scan during their mammography visit. Over a 3-year period, monthly rates of lung scans in women rose by 50% at one facility and 36% at the other.

“What we found is that women are really receptive, if you talk to them about it,” Dr. Sandler said. “I don’t think that lung cancer is thought of as a disease in women.”

Although lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, a recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine found only 18% of eligible patients were screened in 2022, a far cry from the rates of 72% for colon cancer — which itself falls short of goals from US medical groups like the American Cancer Society (ACS). Among those eligible, rates of lung screenings were lowest among younger people without comorbid conditions, who did not have health insurance or a usual source of care, and those living in southern states and states that did not expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act.

But researchers and clinicians, from those working in an urban health center for the homeless to clinics in the poorest counties in the tobacco belt, have used strategies to raise their rates of screening for lung cancer.

Getting patients screened is lifesaving: 27% of people with lung cancer survive 5 years after diagnosis. But the survival rate rises to 63% when cases are diagnosed at an early stage.
 

Increasing Uptake

The formal recommendation to use low-dose chest CT to screen for lung cancer is only a decade old. The approach was first endorsed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the basis of an influential trial that found such testing was linked to a 20% reduction in mortality from the disease. Updated 2021 USPSTF guidelines call for annual screening of people aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year history of smoking and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

But implementing the recommendation is not always simple. Unlike a colorectal or breast cancer screening, which is recommended primarily on patient age, eligibility for a lung cancer screening requires calculating pack-years of smoking, and, for past smokers, knowledge of when they quit.

The structured fields in most electronic medical records (EMRs) inquire about current or past use of cigarettes and the number of daily packs smoked. But few EMRs can calculate when a patient starts smoking two cigarettes a day but then increases to a pack a day and cuts down again. EMRs also do not track when a patient has stopped smoking permanently. Individual clinicians or health systems must identify patients who are eligible for screening, but the lack of automated calculations makes that job more difficult.

Dr. Sandler and colleagues turned to the informatics team at Vanderbilt to develop a natural language processing approach that extracts smoking data directly from clinician notes instead of using standard variables in their EMR.

The number of patients identified as needing a screening using the algorithm nearly doubled from baseline, from 5887 to 10,231 over a 3-year period, according to results from another study that Dr. Sandler published.

Although the algorithm may occasionally flag someone who does not need screening as eligible, “you can always have a conversation with the patient to determine if they actually meet eligibility criteria,” Dr. Sandler said.
 

Patient Navigators to the Rescue?

About a decade ago, Travis Baggett, MD, MPH, an associate professor of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, received pilot funding from the ACS to study cancer epidemiology among patients at Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP), which serves nearly 10,000 patients at a variety of Boston-area clinics each year.

“We found that both the incidence and mortality rates for lung cancer were more than twofold higher than in the general population,” Dr. Baggett, who is also the director of research at BHCHP, said.

He also discovered that BHCHP patients were diagnosed at significantly later stages than people in the general population for malignancies like breast and colorectal cancer.

Screening for lung cancer was a new recommendation at the time. With additional funding from the ACS, he launched a clinical trial in 2020 that randomized patients who were eligible for lung cancer screening to either work with a patient navigator or receive usual care.

The navigators eased the burden on primary care clinicians: They facilitated shared decision-making visits, helped participants make and attend appointments for low-dose CT, assisted with transportation, and arranged follow-up as needed.

The 3-year study found 43% of patients who received navigation services underwent screening for lung cancer, compared with 9% in the usual-care arm. Participants said the navigators played a critical role in educating them about the importance of screening, coordinating care, and providing emotional support.

“At the root of it all, it was quite clear that one thing that made the navigator successful was their interpersonal qualities and having someone that the patient could trust to help guide them through the process,” Dr. Baggett said.

The navigator program, however, stopped when the funding for the study ended.

But another health system has implemented navigators in a sustainable way through a quality improvement project. Michael Gieske, MD, director of lung cancer screening at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Kentucky, starts his Friday morning meeting with a multidisciplinary group, including a thoracic surgeon, radiologist, pulmonologist, and several screening nurse navigators. They review the week’s chest CTs, with approximately one-third from patients who underwent lung cancer screening.

Nurse navigators at St. Elizabeth Healthcare follow up with any patient whose scan is suspicious for lung cancer and guide them through the process of seeing specialists and obtaining additional testing.

“They essentially hold the patient’s hand through this scary time in their life and make sure that everything flows smoothly and efficiently,” said Dr. Gieske, a family medicine physician.

St. Elizabeth’s program also draws on several evidence-based strategies used for other cancer screening programs, such as patient and provider education and quarterly feedback to their 194 primary care clinicians on rates of lung cancer screening among their eligible patients.

Several requirements for reimbursement for a lung cancer screening from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services can also serve as barriers to getting patients screened: Clinicians must identify who is eligible, provide tobacco cessation counseling, and document the shared decision-making process.

To streamline the steps, St. Elizabeth’s clinicians use an EMR smart set that reminds clinicians to verify smoking history and helps them document the required counseling.

Last year, 47% of eligible patients received their recommended screening, and Dr. Gieske said he expects even more improvement.

“We’re on track this year to complete 60% uptake if things continue,” he said, adding that 76% of the new cases of lung cancer are now diagnosed in stage I, with only 5% diagnosed in stage IV.

Dr. Gieske has shared his experience with many clinics in Appalachia, home to some of the highest rates of mortality from lung cancer in the country. A major part of his role with the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance is helping educate primary care clinicians in the region about the importance of early detection of lung cancer.

“I think one of the most important things is just to convey a message of hope,” he said. “We’re trying to get the good word out there that if you screen individuals, you’re going to catch it early, when you have an extremely high chance of curing the lung cancer.”

Dr. Baggett reported support from grants from the ACS and the Massachusetts General Hospital Research Scholars Program. Dr. Sandler and Dr. Gieske reported no financial conflicts.

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

A few years ago, Kim Lori Sandler, MD, realized many patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer had never been screened for the disease — they received CT scans only because they were symptomatic.

But Dr. Sandler, a radiologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, could see in medical charts that most of these patients had been eligible for a screening before becoming symptomatic. And for women, most had received decades worth of mammograms. She saw an opportunity and launched a study to find out if an intervention would work.

Low-dose CT and mammography services often are available in the same imaging facility, so women who qualified for a lung cancer screening were offered the scan during their mammography visit. Over a 3-year period, monthly rates of lung scans in women rose by 50% at one facility and 36% at the other.

“What we found is that women are really receptive, if you talk to them about it,” Dr. Sandler said. “I don’t think that lung cancer is thought of as a disease in women.”

Although lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, a recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine found only 18% of eligible patients were screened in 2022, a far cry from the rates of 72% for colon cancer — which itself falls short of goals from US medical groups like the American Cancer Society (ACS). Among those eligible, rates of lung screenings were lowest among younger people without comorbid conditions, who did not have health insurance or a usual source of care, and those living in southern states and states that did not expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act.

But researchers and clinicians, from those working in an urban health center for the homeless to clinics in the poorest counties in the tobacco belt, have used strategies to raise their rates of screening for lung cancer.

Getting patients screened is lifesaving: 27% of people with lung cancer survive 5 years after diagnosis. But the survival rate rises to 63% when cases are diagnosed at an early stage.
 

Increasing Uptake

The formal recommendation to use low-dose chest CT to screen for lung cancer is only a decade old. The approach was first endorsed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the basis of an influential trial that found such testing was linked to a 20% reduction in mortality from the disease. Updated 2021 USPSTF guidelines call for annual screening of people aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year history of smoking and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

But implementing the recommendation is not always simple. Unlike a colorectal or breast cancer screening, which is recommended primarily on patient age, eligibility for a lung cancer screening requires calculating pack-years of smoking, and, for past smokers, knowledge of when they quit.

The structured fields in most electronic medical records (EMRs) inquire about current or past use of cigarettes and the number of daily packs smoked. But few EMRs can calculate when a patient starts smoking two cigarettes a day but then increases to a pack a day and cuts down again. EMRs also do not track when a patient has stopped smoking permanently. Individual clinicians or health systems must identify patients who are eligible for screening, but the lack of automated calculations makes that job more difficult.

Dr. Sandler and colleagues turned to the informatics team at Vanderbilt to develop a natural language processing approach that extracts smoking data directly from clinician notes instead of using standard variables in their EMR.

The number of patients identified as needing a screening using the algorithm nearly doubled from baseline, from 5887 to 10,231 over a 3-year period, according to results from another study that Dr. Sandler published.

Although the algorithm may occasionally flag someone who does not need screening as eligible, “you can always have a conversation with the patient to determine if they actually meet eligibility criteria,” Dr. Sandler said.
 

Patient Navigators to the Rescue?

About a decade ago, Travis Baggett, MD, MPH, an associate professor of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, received pilot funding from the ACS to study cancer epidemiology among patients at Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP), which serves nearly 10,000 patients at a variety of Boston-area clinics each year.

“We found that both the incidence and mortality rates for lung cancer were more than twofold higher than in the general population,” Dr. Baggett, who is also the director of research at BHCHP, said.

He also discovered that BHCHP patients were diagnosed at significantly later stages than people in the general population for malignancies like breast and colorectal cancer.

Screening for lung cancer was a new recommendation at the time. With additional funding from the ACS, he launched a clinical trial in 2020 that randomized patients who were eligible for lung cancer screening to either work with a patient navigator or receive usual care.

The navigators eased the burden on primary care clinicians: They facilitated shared decision-making visits, helped participants make and attend appointments for low-dose CT, assisted with transportation, and arranged follow-up as needed.

The 3-year study found 43% of patients who received navigation services underwent screening for lung cancer, compared with 9% in the usual-care arm. Participants said the navigators played a critical role in educating them about the importance of screening, coordinating care, and providing emotional support.

“At the root of it all, it was quite clear that one thing that made the navigator successful was their interpersonal qualities and having someone that the patient could trust to help guide them through the process,” Dr. Baggett said.

The navigator program, however, stopped when the funding for the study ended.

But another health system has implemented navigators in a sustainable way through a quality improvement project. Michael Gieske, MD, director of lung cancer screening at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Kentucky, starts his Friday morning meeting with a multidisciplinary group, including a thoracic surgeon, radiologist, pulmonologist, and several screening nurse navigators. They review the week’s chest CTs, with approximately one-third from patients who underwent lung cancer screening.

Nurse navigators at St. Elizabeth Healthcare follow up with any patient whose scan is suspicious for lung cancer and guide them through the process of seeing specialists and obtaining additional testing.

“They essentially hold the patient’s hand through this scary time in their life and make sure that everything flows smoothly and efficiently,” said Dr. Gieske, a family medicine physician.

St. Elizabeth’s program also draws on several evidence-based strategies used for other cancer screening programs, such as patient and provider education and quarterly feedback to their 194 primary care clinicians on rates of lung cancer screening among their eligible patients.

Several requirements for reimbursement for a lung cancer screening from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services can also serve as barriers to getting patients screened: Clinicians must identify who is eligible, provide tobacco cessation counseling, and document the shared decision-making process.

To streamline the steps, St. Elizabeth’s clinicians use an EMR smart set that reminds clinicians to verify smoking history and helps them document the required counseling.

Last year, 47% of eligible patients received their recommended screening, and Dr. Gieske said he expects even more improvement.

“We’re on track this year to complete 60% uptake if things continue,” he said, adding that 76% of the new cases of lung cancer are now diagnosed in stage I, with only 5% diagnosed in stage IV.

Dr. Gieske has shared his experience with many clinics in Appalachia, home to some of the highest rates of mortality from lung cancer in the country. A major part of his role with the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance is helping educate primary care clinicians in the region about the importance of early detection of lung cancer.

“I think one of the most important things is just to convey a message of hope,” he said. “We’re trying to get the good word out there that if you screen individuals, you’re going to catch it early, when you have an extremely high chance of curing the lung cancer.”

Dr. Baggett reported support from grants from the ACS and the Massachusetts General Hospital Research Scholars Program. Dr. Sandler and Dr. Gieske reported no financial conflicts.

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

A central aim of prostate cancer treatment is to prolong survival, but trials often overlook another key goal: Improving — or at least maintaining — quality of life (QoL).

The recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting dedicated a session to QoL outcomes in men with prostate cancer.

The trials explored the effects of treatment suspension or intensification on health-related QoL as well as interventions to manage side effects in different patient populations.

The first presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 EMBARK trial, which looked at the effect of suspending treatment on health-related QoL in men with nonmetastatic disease at a high risk for biochemical recurrence.

Earlier findings from the trial, presented at ESMO in 2023, showed enzalutamide alone or in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was associated with a significant improvement in metastasis-free survival vs placebo plus leuprolide.

The initial trial randomized 1068 patients at a high risk for biochemical recurrence to these three treatment groups and suspended therapy at week 37 if prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels fell below 0.2 ng/mL. Patients, however, were not randomized into the treatment suspension groups. Treatment resumed if PSA levels rose to ≥ 2.0 ng/mL in patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy or ≥ 5.0 ng/mL in those who had not had surgery.

The post hoc analysis, which assessed patient-reported QoL outcomes following treatment suspension at baseline and every 12 weeks until progression, found no meaningful changes in the worst pain in the past 24 hours, as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form.

Patients also reported no meaningful changes in total and physical well-being scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P) and on the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions (EuroQol-5D) visual analog scale score, as well as no meaningful changes in sexual activity and urinary and bowel symptoms, based on scores from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Prostate 25 (QLQ-PR25).

Hormone treatment-related symptoms on the QLQ-PR25, however, “quickly improved but eventually began to worsen after week 97,” explained lead author Stephen J. Freedland, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, who presented the new findings at ASCO.

Dr. Freedland concluded that the EMBARK results show that enzalutamide, with or without ADT, improves metastasis-free survival vs leuprolide alone, without affecting global health-related QoL during treatment or after treatment suspension.

However, Channing J. Paller, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the research, pointed out that “patient selection is key” when choosing therapies, given that ADT has distinct adverse effects. Comorbidities and adverse effects “must be taken into consideration to help the doctor and patient make more personalized treatment choices.”
 

Treatment Intensification and QoL

Another presentation explored health-related QoL outcomes from the phase 3 PRESTO trial.

The study examined ADT intensification in 504 patients who had high-risk biochemically relapsed nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and a PSA doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomized to ADT monotherapy with degarelix or leuprolide, ADT plus apalutamide, or ADT plus apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and prednisone.

In previous data from PRESTO, the combination therapy groups both had significantly longer median PSA progression-free survival than the ADT monotherapy arm.

The latest data looked at the health-related QoL outcomes in the PRESTO population, measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, the PROMIS Fatigue tool, the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale, and the EuroQol-5D.

Ronald C. Chen, MD, MPH, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, who presented the new findings at ASCO, reported that ADT plus apalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival over ADT alone and did not meaningfully increase common treatment-related symptoms, such as hormonal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, hot flash interference, and fatigue.

However, treatment intensification with triple androgen regimen did not lead to further improvements in PSA progression-free survival but did increase the rate of serious adverse events, the time to testosterone recover, and increased hot flash interference.

PRESTO as well as EMBARK “provide a strong rationale for intensification of androgen blockade in men with high-risk biochemical recurrence after completing primary local therapy” and could even “reduce the need for subsequent treatment,” concluded Dr. Chen.
 

CBT for Managing ADT Side Effects

Up to 80% of men receiving ADT to treat prostate cancer experience night sweats and hot flashes, which are associated with sleep disturbance, anxiety, low mood, and cognitive impairments.

A third trial presented during the session looked at the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on these side effects of ADT treatment.

Initial findings from the MANCAN study found that CBT delivered by a psychologist reduced the impact of hot flashes and night sweats at 6 weeks.

The MANCAN2 study assessed QoL at 6 months among 162 patients with localized or advanced prostate cancer who underwent at least 6 months of continuous ADT and who experienced more severe hot flashes and night sweats, defined as a score of ≥ 2 on the hot flashes and night sweats problem rating scale.

Study participants were randomized to CBT plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual alone, with the intervention consisting of two CBT group sessions 4 weeks apart. Between CBT sessions, patients could refer to a booklet and CD, alongside exercises and CBT strategies.

MANCAN2 confirmed that CBT was associated with a significantly greater reduction in hot flash and night sweat scores over standard care alone at 6 weeks. Patients receiving CBT also reported better QoL, sleep, and functional status but those differences did not reach statistical significance.

By 6 months, those in the CBT group still reported better outcomes in each category, but no differences were statistically significant at this time point. Overall, however, 14% of treatment as usual alone patients discontinued ADT at 6 months vs none in the CBT arm.

“Further research is therefore needed to determine whether or not you can make this effect more durable” and to look at “the potential for CBT to support treatment compliance,” said study presenter Simon J. Crabb, PhD, MBBS, from the University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, England.
 

QoL With Radioligand Crossover

Finally, the phase 3 PSMAfore study compared ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 with abiraterone or enzalutamide in 468 taxane-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had progressed on a previous androgen receptor pathway inhibitor.

In earlier analyses, Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD, Institut Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France, reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 improved radiographic progression-free survival by 59% over androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy but did not lead to significant differences in overall survival.

In a new interim analysis, Dr. Fizazi and colleagues explored outcomes in patients eligible to cross over to ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 following androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy. Assessments of health-related QoL revealed that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to about a 40% improvement in scores on two QoL tools — 41% with FACT-P and 39% with EuroQol-5D.

On subscales of FACT-P, Dr. Fizazi reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 was also associated with a significantly longer time to worsening in physical, functional, and emotional well-being over standard therapy. A pain inventory score indicated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to a 31% improvement in the time to worsening pain intensity, as well as a 33% increase in the time to worsening pain interference.

With the treatment having a “favorable safety profile,” Dr. Fizazi said the results suggest ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 is a “treatment option” for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have undergone androgen receptor pathway inhibitor treatment.

MANCAN2 was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research. EMBARK was funded by Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, the codevelopers of enzalutamide. PRESTO was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials and Johnson & Johnson. PSMAfore was funded by Novartis. Dr. Freedland declared relationships with Pfizer and Astellas Pharma, among others. Paller declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Dendreon, Exelixis, Janssen Oncology, Omnitura, Lilly, and Bayer. Dr. Chen declared relationships with Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Crabb declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck, Amgen, Amphista Therapeutics, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, and Roche. Dr. Fizazi reported relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, and a dozen other companies.

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

A central aim of prostate cancer treatment is to prolong survival, but trials often overlook another key goal: Improving — or at least maintaining — quality of life (QoL).

The recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting dedicated a session to QoL outcomes in men with prostate cancer.

The trials explored the effects of treatment suspension or intensification on health-related QoL as well as interventions to manage side effects in different patient populations.

The first presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 EMBARK trial, which looked at the effect of suspending treatment on health-related QoL in men with nonmetastatic disease at a high risk for biochemical recurrence.

Earlier findings from the trial, presented at ESMO in 2023, showed enzalutamide alone or in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was associated with a significant improvement in metastasis-free survival vs placebo plus leuprolide.

The initial trial randomized 1068 patients at a high risk for biochemical recurrence to these three treatment groups and suspended therapy at week 37 if prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels fell below 0.2 ng/mL. Patients, however, were not randomized into the treatment suspension groups. Treatment resumed if PSA levels rose to ≥ 2.0 ng/mL in patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy or ≥ 5.0 ng/mL in those who had not had surgery.

The post hoc analysis, which assessed patient-reported QoL outcomes following treatment suspension at baseline and every 12 weeks until progression, found no meaningful changes in the worst pain in the past 24 hours, as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form.

Patients also reported no meaningful changes in total and physical well-being scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P) and on the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions (EuroQol-5D) visual analog scale score, as well as no meaningful changes in sexual activity and urinary and bowel symptoms, based on scores from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Prostate 25 (QLQ-PR25).

Hormone treatment-related symptoms on the QLQ-PR25, however, “quickly improved but eventually began to worsen after week 97,” explained lead author Stephen J. Freedland, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, who presented the new findings at ASCO.

Dr. Freedland concluded that the EMBARK results show that enzalutamide, with or without ADT, improves metastasis-free survival vs leuprolide alone, without affecting global health-related QoL during treatment or after treatment suspension.

However, Channing J. Paller, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the research, pointed out that “patient selection is key” when choosing therapies, given that ADT has distinct adverse effects. Comorbidities and adverse effects “must be taken into consideration to help the doctor and patient make more personalized treatment choices.”
 

Treatment Intensification and QoL

Another presentation explored health-related QoL outcomes from the phase 3 PRESTO trial.

The study examined ADT intensification in 504 patients who had high-risk biochemically relapsed nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and a PSA doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomized to ADT monotherapy with degarelix or leuprolide, ADT plus apalutamide, or ADT plus apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and prednisone.

In previous data from PRESTO, the combination therapy groups both had significantly longer median PSA progression-free survival than the ADT monotherapy arm.

The latest data looked at the health-related QoL outcomes in the PRESTO population, measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, the PROMIS Fatigue tool, the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale, and the EuroQol-5D.

Ronald C. Chen, MD, MPH, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, who presented the new findings at ASCO, reported that ADT plus apalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival over ADT alone and did not meaningfully increase common treatment-related symptoms, such as hormonal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, hot flash interference, and fatigue.

However, treatment intensification with triple androgen regimen did not lead to further improvements in PSA progression-free survival but did increase the rate of serious adverse events, the time to testosterone recover, and increased hot flash interference.

PRESTO as well as EMBARK “provide a strong rationale for intensification of androgen blockade in men with high-risk biochemical recurrence after completing primary local therapy” and could even “reduce the need for subsequent treatment,” concluded Dr. Chen.
 

CBT for Managing ADT Side Effects

Up to 80% of men receiving ADT to treat prostate cancer experience night sweats and hot flashes, which are associated with sleep disturbance, anxiety, low mood, and cognitive impairments.

A third trial presented during the session looked at the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on these side effects of ADT treatment.

Initial findings from the MANCAN study found that CBT delivered by a psychologist reduced the impact of hot flashes and night sweats at 6 weeks.

The MANCAN2 study assessed QoL at 6 months among 162 patients with localized or advanced prostate cancer who underwent at least 6 months of continuous ADT and who experienced more severe hot flashes and night sweats, defined as a score of ≥ 2 on the hot flashes and night sweats problem rating scale.

Study participants were randomized to CBT plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual alone, with the intervention consisting of two CBT group sessions 4 weeks apart. Between CBT sessions, patients could refer to a booklet and CD, alongside exercises and CBT strategies.

MANCAN2 confirmed that CBT was associated with a significantly greater reduction in hot flash and night sweat scores over standard care alone at 6 weeks. Patients receiving CBT also reported better QoL, sleep, and functional status but those differences did not reach statistical significance.

By 6 months, those in the CBT group still reported better outcomes in each category, but no differences were statistically significant at this time point. Overall, however, 14% of treatment as usual alone patients discontinued ADT at 6 months vs none in the CBT arm.

“Further research is therefore needed to determine whether or not you can make this effect more durable” and to look at “the potential for CBT to support treatment compliance,” said study presenter Simon J. Crabb, PhD, MBBS, from the University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, England.
 

QoL With Radioligand Crossover

Finally, the phase 3 PSMAfore study compared ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 with abiraterone or enzalutamide in 468 taxane-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had progressed on a previous androgen receptor pathway inhibitor.

In earlier analyses, Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD, Institut Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France, reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 improved radiographic progression-free survival by 59% over androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy but did not lead to significant differences in overall survival.

In a new interim analysis, Dr. Fizazi and colleagues explored outcomes in patients eligible to cross over to ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 following androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy. Assessments of health-related QoL revealed that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to about a 40% improvement in scores on two QoL tools — 41% with FACT-P and 39% with EuroQol-5D.

On subscales of FACT-P, Dr. Fizazi reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 was also associated with a significantly longer time to worsening in physical, functional, and emotional well-being over standard therapy. A pain inventory score indicated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to a 31% improvement in the time to worsening pain intensity, as well as a 33% increase in the time to worsening pain interference.

With the treatment having a “favorable safety profile,” Dr. Fizazi said the results suggest ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 is a “treatment option” for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have undergone androgen receptor pathway inhibitor treatment.

MANCAN2 was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research. EMBARK was funded by Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, the codevelopers of enzalutamide. PRESTO was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials and Johnson & Johnson. PSMAfore was funded by Novartis. Dr. Freedland declared relationships with Pfizer and Astellas Pharma, among others. Paller declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Dendreon, Exelixis, Janssen Oncology, Omnitura, Lilly, and Bayer. Dr. Chen declared relationships with Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Crabb declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck, Amgen, Amphista Therapeutics, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, and Roche. Dr. Fizazi reported relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, and a dozen other companies.

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

A central aim of prostate cancer treatment is to prolong survival, but trials often overlook another key goal: Improving — or at least maintaining — quality of life (QoL).

The recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting dedicated a session to QoL outcomes in men with prostate cancer.

The trials explored the effects of treatment suspension or intensification on health-related QoL as well as interventions to manage side effects in different patient populations.

The first presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 EMBARK trial, which looked at the effect of suspending treatment on health-related QoL in men with nonmetastatic disease at a high risk for biochemical recurrence.

Earlier findings from the trial, presented at ESMO in 2023, showed enzalutamide alone or in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was associated with a significant improvement in metastasis-free survival vs placebo plus leuprolide.

The initial trial randomized 1068 patients at a high risk for biochemical recurrence to these three treatment groups and suspended therapy at week 37 if prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels fell below 0.2 ng/mL. Patients, however, were not randomized into the treatment suspension groups. Treatment resumed if PSA levels rose to ≥ 2.0 ng/mL in patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy or ≥ 5.0 ng/mL in those who had not had surgery.

The post hoc analysis, which assessed patient-reported QoL outcomes following treatment suspension at baseline and every 12 weeks until progression, found no meaningful changes in the worst pain in the past 24 hours, as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form.

Patients also reported no meaningful changes in total and physical well-being scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P) and on the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions (EuroQol-5D) visual analog scale score, as well as no meaningful changes in sexual activity and urinary and bowel symptoms, based on scores from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Prostate 25 (QLQ-PR25).

Hormone treatment-related symptoms on the QLQ-PR25, however, “quickly improved but eventually began to worsen after week 97,” explained lead author Stephen J. Freedland, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, who presented the new findings at ASCO.

Dr. Freedland concluded that the EMBARK results show that enzalutamide, with or without ADT, improves metastasis-free survival vs leuprolide alone, without affecting global health-related QoL during treatment or after treatment suspension.

However, Channing J. Paller, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the research, pointed out that “patient selection is key” when choosing therapies, given that ADT has distinct adverse effects. Comorbidities and adverse effects “must be taken into consideration to help the doctor and patient make more personalized treatment choices.”
 

Treatment Intensification and QoL

Another presentation explored health-related QoL outcomes from the phase 3 PRESTO trial.

The study examined ADT intensification in 504 patients who had high-risk biochemically relapsed nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and a PSA doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomized to ADT monotherapy with degarelix or leuprolide, ADT plus apalutamide, or ADT plus apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and prednisone.

In previous data from PRESTO, the combination therapy groups both had significantly longer median PSA progression-free survival than the ADT monotherapy arm.

The latest data looked at the health-related QoL outcomes in the PRESTO population, measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, the PROMIS Fatigue tool, the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale, and the EuroQol-5D.

Ronald C. Chen, MD, MPH, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, who presented the new findings at ASCO, reported that ADT plus apalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival over ADT alone and did not meaningfully increase common treatment-related symptoms, such as hormonal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, hot flash interference, and fatigue.

However, treatment intensification with triple androgen regimen did not lead to further improvements in PSA progression-free survival but did increase the rate of serious adverse events, the time to testosterone recover, and increased hot flash interference.

PRESTO as well as EMBARK “provide a strong rationale for intensification of androgen blockade in men with high-risk biochemical recurrence after completing primary local therapy” and could even “reduce the need for subsequent treatment,” concluded Dr. Chen.
 

CBT for Managing ADT Side Effects

Up to 80% of men receiving ADT to treat prostate cancer experience night sweats and hot flashes, which are associated with sleep disturbance, anxiety, low mood, and cognitive impairments.

A third trial presented during the session looked at the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on these side effects of ADT treatment.

Initial findings from the MANCAN study found that CBT delivered by a psychologist reduced the impact of hot flashes and night sweats at 6 weeks.

The MANCAN2 study assessed QoL at 6 months among 162 patients with localized or advanced prostate cancer who underwent at least 6 months of continuous ADT and who experienced more severe hot flashes and night sweats, defined as a score of ≥ 2 on the hot flashes and night sweats problem rating scale.

Study participants were randomized to CBT plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual alone, with the intervention consisting of two CBT group sessions 4 weeks apart. Between CBT sessions, patients could refer to a booklet and CD, alongside exercises and CBT strategies.

MANCAN2 confirmed that CBT was associated with a significantly greater reduction in hot flash and night sweat scores over standard care alone at 6 weeks. Patients receiving CBT also reported better QoL, sleep, and functional status but those differences did not reach statistical significance.

By 6 months, those in the CBT group still reported better outcomes in each category, but no differences were statistically significant at this time point. Overall, however, 14% of treatment as usual alone patients discontinued ADT at 6 months vs none in the CBT arm.

“Further research is therefore needed to determine whether or not you can make this effect more durable” and to look at “the potential for CBT to support treatment compliance,” said study presenter Simon J. Crabb, PhD, MBBS, from the University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, England.
 

QoL With Radioligand Crossover

Finally, the phase 3 PSMAfore study compared ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 with abiraterone or enzalutamide in 468 taxane-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had progressed on a previous androgen receptor pathway inhibitor.

In earlier analyses, Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD, Institut Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France, reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 improved radiographic progression-free survival by 59% over androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy but did not lead to significant differences in overall survival.

In a new interim analysis, Dr. Fizazi and colleagues explored outcomes in patients eligible to cross over to ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 following androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy. Assessments of health-related QoL revealed that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to about a 40% improvement in scores on two QoL tools — 41% with FACT-P and 39% with EuroQol-5D.

On subscales of FACT-P, Dr. Fizazi reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 was also associated with a significantly longer time to worsening in physical, functional, and emotional well-being over standard therapy. A pain inventory score indicated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to a 31% improvement in the time to worsening pain intensity, as well as a 33% increase in the time to worsening pain interference.

With the treatment having a “favorable safety profile,” Dr. Fizazi said the results suggest ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 is a “treatment option” for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have undergone androgen receptor pathway inhibitor treatment.

MANCAN2 was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research. EMBARK was funded by Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, the codevelopers of enzalutamide. PRESTO was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials and Johnson & Johnson. PSMAfore was funded by Novartis. Dr. Freedland declared relationships with Pfizer and Astellas Pharma, among others. Paller declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Dendreon, Exelixis, Janssen Oncology, Omnitura, Lilly, and Bayer. Dr. Chen declared relationships with Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Crabb declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck, Amgen, Amphista Therapeutics, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, and Roche. Dr. Fizazi reported relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, and a dozen other companies.

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

Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors. 

Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.

For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.

As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.

While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.

According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”

But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.

The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.

In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.

Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.

“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”

A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.

The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.

Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors. 

Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.

For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.

As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.

While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.

According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”

But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.

The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.

In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.

Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.

“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”

A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.

The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.

Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors. 

Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.

For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.

As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.

While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.

According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”

But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.

The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.

In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.

Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.

“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”

A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.

The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.

Findings from the phase 3 ESOPEC trial demonstrate an overall survival advantage with a perioperative chemotherapy regimen known as FLOT, compared with a neoadjuvant chemoradiation approach, called CROSS, in patients with resectable, locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The study results, presented as a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), help settle a long-standing debate about whether chemotherapy with FLOT — 5-florouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel — before and after surgery, or neoadjuvant radiation plus CROSS — carboplatin and paclitaxel — followed by surgery is the best approach.

There has been “considerable disagreement as to whether giving all adjuvant therapy upfront versus ‘sandwich’ adjuvant therapy before and after surgery is the better standard of care for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer,” Jennifer Tseng, MD, of Boston Medical Center, Boston, said in an ASCO press release. This randomized clinical trial shows the sandwich approach “provides better outcomes.”

The practice-changing ESOPEC findings will have an important effect on the management of patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, but local and distant failures remain a challenge in this population, explained invited discussant Karyn A. Goodman, MD.

Advances since the initiation of ESOPEC — such as immunotherapy options and personalized strategies — suggest the esophageal adenocarcinoma story is still evolving, said Dr. Goodman, professor and vice chair of research and quality in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. 
 

The ESOPEC trial

Both the FLOT and CROSS regimens are established standards of care in resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, and the choice of treatment has largely varied based on geographical location.

The current randomized, prospective, open-label ESOPEC trial, however, demonstrated that FLOT can prolong overall survival, first author Jens Hoeppner, MD, from the University of Bielefeld in Detmold, Germany, reported.

Overall, 438 patients with locally advanced, resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma recruited between February 2016 and April 2020 from 25 sites in Germany and randomized to either FLOT (n = 221) or CROSS (n = 217). The median age was 63 years, and most (89.3%) were men. Patients were followed until November 2023, and median follow-up was 55 months.

Patients in the FLOT arm received four cycles — one every 2 weeks for 8 weeks — followed by surgery 4-6 weeks later. FLOT cycles were reinitiated 4-6 weeks after surgery and given every 2 weeks for 8 weeks.

Those in the CROSS arm received one cycle per week of radiation therapy for 5 weeks plus carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by surgery 4-6 weeks after the last cycle.

Overall, 86% received both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery in the FLOT arm versus 82.9% in the CROSS group. Among these patients, 16.8% in the FLOT group achieved a pathological complete remission versus 10.0% in the CROSS arm.

In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was almost twice as long in the FLOT group — 66 months versus 37 months. At 3 years, those who received FLOT had a 30% lower risk of dying (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70), with 57.4% of patients alive at that point, compared with 50.7% patients in the CROSS arm.

The 5-year overall survival was 50.6% in the FLOT group versus 38.7% in the CROSS group.

Patients receiving FLOT also demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS), with a median PFS of 38 months versus 16 months. The 3-year PFS was 51.6% with FLOT versus 35.0% with CROSS (HR, 0.66). The exploratory subgroup analyses for sex, age, ECOG status, and clinical T and N stages also favored FLOT.

The 30-day postoperative mortality was 1.0% in the FLOT group and 1.7% in the CROSS group, and the 90-day postoperative mortality rate was 3.2% and 5.6%, respectively.

Based on these findings, perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT should be preferred over neoadjuvant chemoradiation with CROSS, Dr. Hoeppner concluded.

Dr. Goodman agreed, noting that, in the wake of ESOPEC, FLOT will likely be adopted as a more standard approach in the United States for patients who are fit. And, for patients who are not candidates for FLOT, CROSS is a reasonable option, she said.

But, she asked, does it really have to be an either/or situation?

Multiple studies, including Dr. Goodman’s 2021 Alliance/CALGB 80803 study, have demonstrated promising outcomes with combined modalities and adapting therapy based on treatment response. Several trials, for instance, are evaluating combining FLOT and CROSS, with some showing the approach is feasible and comes with manageable toxicity.

It’s also important to look outside of FLOT and CROSS. During ESOPEC, new approaches entered the treatment landscape, including the use of adjuvant immunotherapy following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery for noncomplete response.

Take the CheckMate 577 study, which found that adjuvant nivolumab immunotherapy after preoperative CROSS and surgery significantly reduced metastatic recurrence and doubled disease-free survival in patients who did not achieve a complete response. This approach is now a standard of care for those patients.

FLOT plus neoadjuvant nivolumab may also be a viable option, Dr. Goodman noted, but we haven’t yet seen “any benefit in survival with the combo of chemotherapy and immunotherapy for resectable esophago-gastric cancer.”

Further studies are needed to evaluate the synergy of immunotherapy and radiotherapy. The next chapter of the esophageal adenocarcinoma story may feature a “best-of-both-worlds” approach that combines induction chemotherapy, followed by personalized chemoradiation, surgery, and potentially adjuvant immunotherapy, Dr. Goodman explained.

While the ESOPEC findings are impressive, the 5-year overall survival of only 50% is still suboptimal, she noted. “Given the poor prognosis with this disease, we need to continue to develop clinical trials to identify better targets, novel treatment combinations, and select patients that will respond best to specific treatment.”

ESOPEC was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation). Dr. Hoeppner reported receiving travel, accommodations, and expenses from Intuitive Surgical. Dr. Goodman reported a relationship with the National Cancer Institute and consulting or advisory roles for Novartis, Philips Healthcare, RenovoRX, and Roche/Genentech.

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

Findings from the phase 3 ESOPEC trial demonstrate an overall survival advantage with a perioperative chemotherapy regimen known as FLOT, compared with a neoadjuvant chemoradiation approach, called CROSS, in patients with resectable, locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The study results, presented as a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), help settle a long-standing debate about whether chemotherapy with FLOT — 5-florouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel — before and after surgery, or neoadjuvant radiation plus CROSS — carboplatin and paclitaxel — followed by surgery is the best approach.

There has been “considerable disagreement as to whether giving all adjuvant therapy upfront versus ‘sandwich’ adjuvant therapy before and after surgery is the better standard of care for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer,” Jennifer Tseng, MD, of Boston Medical Center, Boston, said in an ASCO press release. This randomized clinical trial shows the sandwich approach “provides better outcomes.”

The practice-changing ESOPEC findings will have an important effect on the management of patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, but local and distant failures remain a challenge in this population, explained invited discussant Karyn A. Goodman, MD.

Advances since the initiation of ESOPEC — such as immunotherapy options and personalized strategies — suggest the esophageal adenocarcinoma story is still evolving, said Dr. Goodman, professor and vice chair of research and quality in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. 
 

The ESOPEC trial

Both the FLOT and CROSS regimens are established standards of care in resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, and the choice of treatment has largely varied based on geographical location.

The current randomized, prospective, open-label ESOPEC trial, however, demonstrated that FLOT can prolong overall survival, first author Jens Hoeppner, MD, from the University of Bielefeld in Detmold, Germany, reported.

Overall, 438 patients with locally advanced, resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma recruited between February 2016 and April 2020 from 25 sites in Germany and randomized to either FLOT (n = 221) or CROSS (n = 217). The median age was 63 years, and most (89.3%) were men. Patients were followed until November 2023, and median follow-up was 55 months.

Patients in the FLOT arm received four cycles — one every 2 weeks for 8 weeks — followed by surgery 4-6 weeks later. FLOT cycles were reinitiated 4-6 weeks after surgery and given every 2 weeks for 8 weeks.

Those in the CROSS arm received one cycle per week of radiation therapy for 5 weeks plus carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by surgery 4-6 weeks after the last cycle.

Overall, 86% received both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery in the FLOT arm versus 82.9% in the CROSS group. Among these patients, 16.8% in the FLOT group achieved a pathological complete remission versus 10.0% in the CROSS arm.

In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was almost twice as long in the FLOT group — 66 months versus 37 months. At 3 years, those who received FLOT had a 30% lower risk of dying (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70), with 57.4% of patients alive at that point, compared with 50.7% patients in the CROSS arm.

The 5-year overall survival was 50.6% in the FLOT group versus 38.7% in the CROSS group.

Patients receiving FLOT also demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS), with a median PFS of 38 months versus 16 months. The 3-year PFS was 51.6% with FLOT versus 35.0% with CROSS (HR, 0.66). The exploratory subgroup analyses for sex, age, ECOG status, and clinical T and N stages also favored FLOT.

The 30-day postoperative mortality was 1.0% in the FLOT group and 1.7% in the CROSS group, and the 90-day postoperative mortality rate was 3.2% and 5.6%, respectively.

Based on these findings, perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT should be preferred over neoadjuvant chemoradiation with CROSS, Dr. Hoeppner concluded.

Dr. Goodman agreed, noting that, in the wake of ESOPEC, FLOT will likely be adopted as a more standard approach in the United States for patients who are fit. And, for patients who are not candidates for FLOT, CROSS is a reasonable option, she said.

But, she asked, does it really have to be an either/or situation?

Multiple studies, including Dr. Goodman’s 2021 Alliance/CALGB 80803 study, have demonstrated promising outcomes with combined modalities and adapting therapy based on treatment response. Several trials, for instance, are evaluating combining FLOT and CROSS, with some showing the approach is feasible and comes with manageable toxicity.

It’s also important to look outside of FLOT and CROSS. During ESOPEC, new approaches entered the treatment landscape, including the use of adjuvant immunotherapy following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery for noncomplete response.

Take the CheckMate 577 study, which found that adjuvant nivolumab immunotherapy after preoperative CROSS and surgery significantly reduced metastatic recurrence and doubled disease-free survival in patients who did not achieve a complete response. This approach is now a standard of care for those patients.

FLOT plus neoadjuvant nivolumab may also be a viable option, Dr. Goodman noted, but we haven’t yet seen “any benefit in survival with the combo of chemotherapy and immunotherapy for resectable esophago-gastric cancer.”

Further studies are needed to evaluate the synergy of immunotherapy and radiotherapy. The next chapter of the esophageal adenocarcinoma story may feature a “best-of-both-worlds” approach that combines induction chemotherapy, followed by personalized chemoradiation, surgery, and potentially adjuvant immunotherapy, Dr. Goodman explained.

While the ESOPEC findings are impressive, the 5-year overall survival of only 50% is still suboptimal, she noted. “Given the poor prognosis with this disease, we need to continue to develop clinical trials to identify better targets, novel treatment combinations, and select patients that will respond best to specific treatment.”

ESOPEC was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation). Dr. Hoeppner reported receiving travel, accommodations, and expenses from Intuitive Surgical. Dr. Goodman reported a relationship with the National Cancer Institute and consulting or advisory roles for Novartis, Philips Healthcare, RenovoRX, and Roche/Genentech.

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

Findings from the phase 3 ESOPEC trial demonstrate an overall survival advantage with a perioperative chemotherapy regimen known as FLOT, compared with a neoadjuvant chemoradiation approach, called CROSS, in patients with resectable, locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The study results, presented as a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), help settle a long-standing debate about whether chemotherapy with FLOT — 5-florouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel — before and after surgery, or neoadjuvant radiation plus CROSS — carboplatin and paclitaxel — followed by surgery is the best approach.

There has been “considerable disagreement as to whether giving all adjuvant therapy upfront versus ‘sandwich’ adjuvant therapy before and after surgery is the better standard of care for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer,” Jennifer Tseng, MD, of Boston Medical Center, Boston, said in an ASCO press release. This randomized clinical trial shows the sandwich approach “provides better outcomes.”

The practice-changing ESOPEC findings will have an important effect on the management of patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, but local and distant failures remain a challenge in this population, explained invited discussant Karyn A. Goodman, MD.

Advances since the initiation of ESOPEC — such as immunotherapy options and personalized strategies — suggest the esophageal adenocarcinoma story is still evolving, said Dr. Goodman, professor and vice chair of research and quality in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. 
 

The ESOPEC trial

Both the FLOT and CROSS regimens are established standards of care in resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, and the choice of treatment has largely varied based on geographical location.

The current randomized, prospective, open-label ESOPEC trial, however, demonstrated that FLOT can prolong overall survival, first author Jens Hoeppner, MD, from the University of Bielefeld in Detmold, Germany, reported.

Overall, 438 patients with locally advanced, resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma recruited between February 2016 and April 2020 from 25 sites in Germany and randomized to either FLOT (n = 221) or CROSS (n = 217). The median age was 63 years, and most (89.3%) were men. Patients were followed until November 2023, and median follow-up was 55 months.

Patients in the FLOT arm received four cycles — one every 2 weeks for 8 weeks — followed by surgery 4-6 weeks later. FLOT cycles were reinitiated 4-6 weeks after surgery and given every 2 weeks for 8 weeks.

Those in the CROSS arm received one cycle per week of radiation therapy for 5 weeks plus carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by surgery 4-6 weeks after the last cycle.

Overall, 86% received both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery in the FLOT arm versus 82.9% in the CROSS group. Among these patients, 16.8% in the FLOT group achieved a pathological complete remission versus 10.0% in the CROSS arm.

In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was almost twice as long in the FLOT group — 66 months versus 37 months. At 3 years, those who received FLOT had a 30% lower risk of dying (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70), with 57.4% of patients alive at that point, compared with 50.7% patients in the CROSS arm.

The 5-year overall survival was 50.6% in the FLOT group versus 38.7% in the CROSS group.

Patients receiving FLOT also demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS), with a median PFS of 38 months versus 16 months. The 3-year PFS was 51.6% with FLOT versus 35.0% with CROSS (HR, 0.66). The exploratory subgroup analyses for sex, age, ECOG status, and clinical T and N stages also favored FLOT.

The 30-day postoperative mortality was 1.0% in the FLOT group and 1.7% in the CROSS group, and the 90-day postoperative mortality rate was 3.2% and 5.6%, respectively.

Based on these findings, perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT should be preferred over neoadjuvant chemoradiation with CROSS, Dr. Hoeppner concluded.

Dr. Goodman agreed, noting that, in the wake of ESOPEC, FLOT will likely be adopted as a more standard approach in the United States for patients who are fit. And, for patients who are not candidates for FLOT, CROSS is a reasonable option, she said.

But, she asked, does it really have to be an either/or situation?

Multiple studies, including Dr. Goodman’s 2021 Alliance/CALGB 80803 study, have demonstrated promising outcomes with combined modalities and adapting therapy based on treatment response. Several trials, for instance, are evaluating combining FLOT and CROSS, with some showing the approach is feasible and comes with manageable toxicity.

It’s also important to look outside of FLOT and CROSS. During ESOPEC, new approaches entered the treatment landscape, including the use of adjuvant immunotherapy following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery for noncomplete response.

Take the CheckMate 577 study, which found that adjuvant nivolumab immunotherapy after preoperative CROSS and surgery significantly reduced metastatic recurrence and doubled disease-free survival in patients who did not achieve a complete response. This approach is now a standard of care for those patients.

FLOT plus neoadjuvant nivolumab may also be a viable option, Dr. Goodman noted, but we haven’t yet seen “any benefit in survival with the combo of chemotherapy and immunotherapy for resectable esophago-gastric cancer.”

Further studies are needed to evaluate the synergy of immunotherapy and radiotherapy. The next chapter of the esophageal adenocarcinoma story may feature a “best-of-both-worlds” approach that combines induction chemotherapy, followed by personalized chemoradiation, surgery, and potentially adjuvant immunotherapy, Dr. Goodman explained.

While the ESOPEC findings are impressive, the 5-year overall survival of only 50% is still suboptimal, she noted. “Given the poor prognosis with this disease, we need to continue to develop clinical trials to identify better targets, novel treatment combinations, and select patients that will respond best to specific treatment.”

ESOPEC was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation). Dr. Hoeppner reported receiving travel, accommodations, and expenses from Intuitive Surgical. Dr. Goodman reported a relationship with the National Cancer Institute and consulting or advisory roles for Novartis, Philips Healthcare, RenovoRX, and Roche/Genentech.

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

Several new studies in lung cancer have opened their doors recently. Is one of your patients eligible to participate?

Resected stage II, IIIA, or IIIB with nodal involvement non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study assessing whether an investigational drug called V940 added to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) delays cancer recurrence better than pembrolizumab alone.

V940 is an individualized neoantigen therapy designed to generate T-cell antitumor responses targeted to a patient’s specific mutation profile.

V940 plus pembrolizumab showed a trend toward longer recurrence-free survival vs pembrolizumab alone in a recent phase 2 study in melanoma (hazard ratio, 0.561; P = .053).

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive intramuscular injections of V940 every 3 weeks plus intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab every 6 weeks for up to approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. The other people in the trial will be on the same schedule, with a placebo replacing V940.

Centers in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and six other countries started recruiting for the trial’s 868 participants in December 2023. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 12 years and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC with a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–tumor proportion score of > 50%. Adults in this clinical situation are eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial to determine whether an experimental antibody-drug conjugate called MK-2870 added to standard pembrolizumab prolongs survival.

MK-2870 delivers a cytotoxin to cancer cells by binding to trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, known to promote tumor cell growth and metastasis. For up to 2 years, half of participants will receive MK-2870 by IV every 2 weeks plus IV pembrolizumab every 6 weeks. The other group will receive only pembrolizumab.

In December 2023, study sites in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, and Turkey started seeking the trial’s 614 participants. Overall survival over approximately 4 years is the primary endpoint; QoL is a secondary endpoint. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutations. Individuals with this type of lung cancer may be interested in a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental oral KRAS G12C inhibitor called LY3537982 boosts the effectiveness of standard treatment and patients can tolerate the combination. Currently approved KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib (Lumakras, Lumykras) and adagrasib (Krazati) are indicated for second-line treatment; this trial may lead to a first-line approval for newcomer LY3537982.

The trial has three parts: dose optimization, safety, and efficacy. During dose optimization, each participant will take one of two oral doses of LY3537982 and receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. In the safety phase, all participants will receive oral LY3537982 at the chosen dose plus standard therapy of 3-times-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum therapy (cisplatin or carboplatin). In the experimental phase, for up to about 1 year, participants will receive one of these four options: Pembrolizumab plus LY3537982, pembrolizumab plus a placebo, standard therapy plus LY3537982, or standard therapy plus a placebo.

The study, which is planning to recruit 1016 participants, opened across 16 US states and 12 countries worldwide in December 2023. Sites in 11 more US states, the District of Columbia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, and 11 more European countries are gearing up. Adverse events and progression-free survival are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3 years and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable, untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations. People with this diagnosis who have HER2 mutations instead of KRAS G12C mutations can participate in a phase 3 study comparing an investigational oral first-line treatment with standard IV therapy. The drug in this study, zongertinib, is a HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

For up to approximately 4 years, one group of participants will take oral zongertinib only, and the other individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin). Study sites in California, Missouri, South Carolina, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore opened in January ready to welcome 270 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. Overall survival over 53 months and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Completely resected stage IIB, IIIA, or select IIIB, PD-L1–positive NSCLC. Adults with this type of lung cancer who have received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy may be eligible for a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study to assess whether two immune checkpoint inhibitors are better than one at delaying cancer recurrence. In this trial, tiragolumab will be added to the approved PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq).

A recent study, however, found that tiragolumab did not confer an additional benefit when added to atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide in untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive IV atezolizumab and tiragolumab, while the other people will receive a placebo instead of tiragolumab. Centers in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Australia, China, South Korea, and Taiwan started recruiting for the trial’s 1150 participants in March 2024. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 15 years and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously treated metastatic or non-operable non-squamous NSCLC. Adults in this position who have received no more than one platinum-based chemotherapy and one anti–PD-L1 drug are sought for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing second-line standard docetaxel with experimental antibody-drug conjugate sigvotatug vedotin. Patients who have tumors with certain treatable genomic alterations must have received at least one drug targeted to that alteration, as well as a platinum-based agent.

Approximately half the participants will receive sigvotatug vedotin by IV every 2 weeks, and the other half will receive IV docetaxel every 3 weeks. The study opened in March across 13 US states, France, Hungary, Poland, and Spain seeking 600 people eligible to participate. The primary outcomes are overall survival over approximately 5 years and objective response rate. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several new studies in lung cancer have opened their doors recently. Is one of your patients eligible to participate?

Resected stage II, IIIA, or IIIB with nodal involvement non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study assessing whether an investigational drug called V940 added to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) delays cancer recurrence better than pembrolizumab alone.

V940 is an individualized neoantigen therapy designed to generate T-cell antitumor responses targeted to a patient’s specific mutation profile.

V940 plus pembrolizumab showed a trend toward longer recurrence-free survival vs pembrolizumab alone in a recent phase 2 study in melanoma (hazard ratio, 0.561; P = .053).

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive intramuscular injections of V940 every 3 weeks plus intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab every 6 weeks for up to approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. The other people in the trial will be on the same schedule, with a placebo replacing V940.

Centers in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and six other countries started recruiting for the trial’s 868 participants in December 2023. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 12 years and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC with a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–tumor proportion score of > 50%. Adults in this clinical situation are eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial to determine whether an experimental antibody-drug conjugate called MK-2870 added to standard pembrolizumab prolongs survival.

MK-2870 delivers a cytotoxin to cancer cells by binding to trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, known to promote tumor cell growth and metastasis. For up to 2 years, half of participants will receive MK-2870 by IV every 2 weeks plus IV pembrolizumab every 6 weeks. The other group will receive only pembrolizumab.

In December 2023, study sites in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, and Turkey started seeking the trial’s 614 participants. Overall survival over approximately 4 years is the primary endpoint; QoL is a secondary endpoint. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutations. Individuals with this type of lung cancer may be interested in a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental oral KRAS G12C inhibitor called LY3537982 boosts the effectiveness of standard treatment and patients can tolerate the combination. Currently approved KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib (Lumakras, Lumykras) and adagrasib (Krazati) are indicated for second-line treatment; this trial may lead to a first-line approval for newcomer LY3537982.

The trial has three parts: dose optimization, safety, and efficacy. During dose optimization, each participant will take one of two oral doses of LY3537982 and receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. In the safety phase, all participants will receive oral LY3537982 at the chosen dose plus standard therapy of 3-times-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum therapy (cisplatin or carboplatin). In the experimental phase, for up to about 1 year, participants will receive one of these four options: Pembrolizumab plus LY3537982, pembrolizumab plus a placebo, standard therapy plus LY3537982, or standard therapy plus a placebo.

The study, which is planning to recruit 1016 participants, opened across 16 US states and 12 countries worldwide in December 2023. Sites in 11 more US states, the District of Columbia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, and 11 more European countries are gearing up. Adverse events and progression-free survival are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3 years and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable, untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations. People with this diagnosis who have HER2 mutations instead of KRAS G12C mutations can participate in a phase 3 study comparing an investigational oral first-line treatment with standard IV therapy. The drug in this study, zongertinib, is a HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

For up to approximately 4 years, one group of participants will take oral zongertinib only, and the other individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin). Study sites in California, Missouri, South Carolina, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore opened in January ready to welcome 270 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. Overall survival over 53 months and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Completely resected stage IIB, IIIA, or select IIIB, PD-L1–positive NSCLC. Adults with this type of lung cancer who have received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy may be eligible for a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study to assess whether two immune checkpoint inhibitors are better than one at delaying cancer recurrence. In this trial, tiragolumab will be added to the approved PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq).

A recent study, however, found that tiragolumab did not confer an additional benefit when added to atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide in untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive IV atezolizumab and tiragolumab, while the other people will receive a placebo instead of tiragolumab. Centers in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Australia, China, South Korea, and Taiwan started recruiting for the trial’s 1150 participants in March 2024. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 15 years and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously treated metastatic or non-operable non-squamous NSCLC. Adults in this position who have received no more than one platinum-based chemotherapy and one anti–PD-L1 drug are sought for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing second-line standard docetaxel with experimental antibody-drug conjugate sigvotatug vedotin. Patients who have tumors with certain treatable genomic alterations must have received at least one drug targeted to that alteration, as well as a platinum-based agent.

Approximately half the participants will receive sigvotatug vedotin by IV every 2 weeks, and the other half will receive IV docetaxel every 3 weeks. The study opened in March across 13 US states, France, Hungary, Poland, and Spain seeking 600 people eligible to participate. The primary outcomes are overall survival over approximately 5 years and objective response rate. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several new studies in lung cancer have opened their doors recently. Is one of your patients eligible to participate?

Resected stage II, IIIA, or IIIB with nodal involvement non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study assessing whether an investigational drug called V940 added to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) delays cancer recurrence better than pembrolizumab alone.

V940 is an individualized neoantigen therapy designed to generate T-cell antitumor responses targeted to a patient’s specific mutation profile.

V940 plus pembrolizumab showed a trend toward longer recurrence-free survival vs pembrolizumab alone in a recent phase 2 study in melanoma (hazard ratio, 0.561; P = .053).

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive intramuscular injections of V940 every 3 weeks plus intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab every 6 weeks for up to approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. The other people in the trial will be on the same schedule, with a placebo replacing V940.

Centers in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and six other countries started recruiting for the trial’s 868 participants in December 2023. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 12 years and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic NSCLC with a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–tumor proportion score of > 50%. Adults in this clinical situation are eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial to determine whether an experimental antibody-drug conjugate called MK-2870 added to standard pembrolizumab prolongs survival.

MK-2870 delivers a cytotoxin to cancer cells by binding to trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, known to promote tumor cell growth and metastasis. For up to 2 years, half of participants will receive MK-2870 by IV every 2 weeks plus IV pembrolizumab every 6 weeks. The other group will receive only pembrolizumab.

In December 2023, study sites in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, and Turkey started seeking the trial’s 614 participants. Overall survival over approximately 4 years is the primary endpoint; QoL is a secondary endpoint. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutations. Individuals with this type of lung cancer may be interested in a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental oral KRAS G12C inhibitor called LY3537982 boosts the effectiveness of standard treatment and patients can tolerate the combination. Currently approved KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib (Lumakras, Lumykras) and adagrasib (Krazati) are indicated for second-line treatment; this trial may lead to a first-line approval for newcomer LY3537982.

The trial has three parts: dose optimization, safety, and efficacy. During dose optimization, each participant will take one of two oral doses of LY3537982 and receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. In the safety phase, all participants will receive oral LY3537982 at the chosen dose plus standard therapy of 3-times-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum therapy (cisplatin or carboplatin). In the experimental phase, for up to about 1 year, participants will receive one of these four options: Pembrolizumab plus LY3537982, pembrolizumab plus a placebo, standard therapy plus LY3537982, or standard therapy plus a placebo.

The study, which is planning to recruit 1016 participants, opened across 16 US states and 12 countries worldwide in December 2023. Sites in 11 more US states, the District of Columbia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, and 11 more European countries are gearing up. Adverse events and progression-free survival are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3 years and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Unresectable, untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations. People with this diagnosis who have HER2 mutations instead of KRAS G12C mutations can participate in a phase 3 study comparing an investigational oral first-line treatment with standard IV therapy. The drug in this study, zongertinib, is a HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

For up to approximately 4 years, one group of participants will take oral zongertinib only, and the other individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin). Study sites in California, Missouri, South Carolina, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore opened in January ready to welcome 270 participants. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. Overall survival over 53 months and QoL are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Completely resected stage IIB, IIIA, or select IIIB, PD-L1–positive NSCLC. Adults with this type of lung cancer who have received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy may be eligible for a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study to assess whether two immune checkpoint inhibitors are better than one at delaying cancer recurrence. In this trial, tiragolumab will be added to the approved PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq).

A recent study, however, found that tiragolumab did not confer an additional benefit when added to atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide in untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

In the current trial, one group of participants will receive IV atezolizumab and tiragolumab, while the other people will receive a placebo instead of tiragolumab. Centers in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Australia, China, South Korea, and Taiwan started recruiting for the trial’s 1150 participants in March 2024. Disease-free survival is the primary endpoint. Overall survival over approximately 15 years and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Previously treated metastatic or non-operable non-squamous NSCLC. Adults in this position who have received no more than one platinum-based chemotherapy and one anti–PD-L1 drug are sought for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing second-line standard docetaxel with experimental antibody-drug conjugate sigvotatug vedotin. Patients who have tumors with certain treatable genomic alterations must have received at least one drug targeted to that alteration, as well as a platinum-based agent.

Approximately half the participants will receive sigvotatug vedotin by IV every 2 weeks, and the other half will receive IV docetaxel every 3 weeks. The study opened in March across 13 US states, France, Hungary, Poland, and Spain seeking 600 people eligible to participate. The primary outcomes are overall survival over approximately 5 years and objective response rate. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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