TBD Meeting (3035-22)

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Some patients with blood cancers for whom all other therapeutic options have been exhausted have one final chance of getting rid of their disease: treatment with chimeric antigen-receptor (CAR) T cells.

Described as a “living drug,” the treatment involves genetically engineering the patient’s own blood cells and reinfusing them back into their system. These CAR T cells then hunt down and destroy cancer cells; in some cases, they manage to eradicate the disease completely.

About half of patients with leukemia or lymphoma and about a third of those with multiple myeloma who receive this treatment have a complete remission and achieve a functional “cure.”

But not all patients who could benefit from this therapy are able to get it. Some are spending months on waiting lists, often deteriorating while they wait. These patients have exhausted all other therapeutic options, and many are facing hospice and death.

The scope of this problem was illustrated by a recent survey of the centers that are certified to deliver this complex therapy.

The survey was led by Yi Lin, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for the cellular therapy program. It was published as an abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology recently, although it was not presented there.

“We wanted to find out just how widespread this problem is,” Dr. Lin said, adding: “There had been nothing in the literature thus far about it.”

The team contacted 20 centers across the United States and received responses from 17. Results showed that the median time on the waiting list was 6 months and that only 25% of patients eventually received CAR T-cell therapy. An additional 25% were able to enter a CAR T clinical trial. The remaining 50% of patients either were enrolled in a different type of trial, entered hospice, or died.

For patient selection, all centers reported using a committee of experienced physicians to ensure consistency. They employed different ethical principles for selection. Some centers sought to maximize the total benefit, such as selecting the patients most likely to achieve leukapheresis or a clinical response, while others based their decisions on the time patients spent on waiting list or gave priority to the patients who were the “worst off” with the most limited therapeutic options.
 

Shortage affecting mostly myeloma patients

The shortages in CAR T-cell therapies primarily involve the products used for patients with multiple myeloma.

The problem has not, as yet, noticeably spilled over to lymphoma and leukemia treatments, which use a slightly different type of CAR T-cell therapy (it targets CD19, whereas the cell therapies used for myeloma target BCMA).

“We have backlog of myeloma patients who don’t have access,” said Nina Shah, MD, a hematologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “We have only four slots for the two myeloma products but about 50-60 eligible patients.”

Long waiting times for CAR T cells for myeloma have been an issue ever since the first of these products appeared on the market: idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by Bluebird Bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb. “As soon as it became available in March 2021, we had people waiting and limits on our access to it,” Dr. Shah said.

A second CAR T-cell therapy for myeloma, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti), developed by Janssen and Legend Biotech, received approval in February 2022. While that helped provide centers with a few more slots, it wasn’t sufficient to cut waiting times, and the demand for these myeloma therapies continues to outstrip the capacity to produce CAR-T products in a timely manner.

“For myeloma, the demand is very high, as most patients are not cured from any other existing myeloma therapies, and most patients will make it to fifth-line therapy where the two CAR T-cell products are approved right now,” said Krina K. Patel, MD, medical director of the department of lymphoma/myeloma in the division of cancer medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We likely have 10 eligible CAR-T myeloma patients each month at our center,” she said, “but were getting two slots per month for the past 8 months, and now are getting four slots a month.”

“Our clinic has also experienced the impact of the low number of manufacturing slots offered to each cancer center for some CAR T-cell products,” said David Maloney, MD, PhD, medical director, Cellular Immunotherapy and Bezos Family Immunotherapy Clinic, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

He noted that, as with other cancer centers, for multiple myeloma they are provided a specific number of manufacturing slots for each treatment. “Our providers discuss which patients are most appropriate for available slots for that month,” said Dr. Maloney.

“Additionally, juggling patient schedules may be required to address the extended manufacturing time for some products. In some cases, clinical trials may be available in a more timely fashion for appropriate patients, and in some cases, switching to an alternative product is possible,” he commented.
 

Complex causes behind bottleneck

The cause of the current bottleneck for myeloma patients is complex. It stems from a shortage of raw materials and supply chain restraints, among other things.

While the biggest impact of shortages has been on patients with multiple myeloma, Dr. Patel pointed out that these constraints are also affecting patients with lymphoma at her institution, but to a lesser degree.

“This is multifactorial as to why, but most of the issues arise from manufacturing,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Initially, the FDA limited how many slots each new product could have per month, then there was a viral vector shortage, and then the quality-control process the FDA requires takes longer than the manufacturing of the cells actually do.”

On top of that, “we have about a 5% manufacturing fail rate so far,” she added. Such failures occur when the cells taken from a patient cannot be converted into CAR T cells for therapy.

Matthew J. Frigault, MD, from the Center for Cellular Therapies, Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, explained that the growing excitement about the potential for cellular therapy and recent approvals for these products for use in earlier lines of treatment have increased demand for them.

There are also problems regarding supply. Manufacture and delivery of CAR T is complicated and takes time to scale up, Dr. Frigault pointed out. “Therefore, we are seeing limited access, more so for the BCMA-directed therapies [which are used for myeloma].”

The shortages and delays likely involve two main factors. “For the newer indications, there is a significant backlog of patients who have been waiting for these therapies and have not been able to access them in the clinical trial setting, and manufacturing is extremely complicated and not easily scaled up,” he said.

“That being said, manufacturers are trying to increase the number of available manufacturing slots and decrease the time needed to manufacture cells,” Dr. Frigault commented.

Delays in access to myeloma CAR T-cell therapy are also affecting patient care at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “We have had about one slot every 2 months for Abecma,” noted Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase. “For Carvykti, there are only 32 certified centers in [the] U.S., and access is very limited.”

Dr. Fung explained that they have had to offer alternative treatments to many of their patients. “There are rumors that there’s shortage in obtaining raw materials, such as the virus used for transduction, although we have not encountered any problems in other CAR T products used for lymphomas.”
 

Pharma companies trying to meet the demand

This news organization reached out to the manufacturers of CAR T products. All have reported that they are doing what they feasibly can to ramp up production.

“The complexity of delivering CAR T-cell therapies is unlike any other traditional biologic or small-molecule medicine, using a patient’s own cells to start a highly sophisticated and personalized manufacturing process,” commented a spokesperson for BMS, which has two CAR T-cell products currently on the market.

“In this nascent field of cell therapy, we continue to evolve every day, addressing supply and manufacturing challenges head on by applying key learnings across our three state-of-the-art cell therapy facilities and two new facilities in progress.

“We have been encouraged by a steady increase in our manufacturing capacity, and we continue efforts to ramp up further to meet the demand for our cell therapies,” the BMS spokesperson commented. “We have already seen improvements in the stabilization of vector supply and expect additional improvements in capacity in the second half of 2022.”

Novartis said much the same thing. They have a “comprehensive, integrated global CAR-T manufacturing footprint that strengthens the flexibility, resilience, and sustainability of the Novartis manufacturing and supply chain. Together with an improved manufacturing process, we are confident in our ability to meet patient demand with timely delivery,” according to a Novartis spokesperson.

The spokesperson also pointed out that the company has continuously incorporated process improvements that have significantly increased manufacturing capacity and success rates for patients in need of CAR T cells.

“Data presented at [the] American Society of Hematology annual meeting in 2021 showed the Novartis Morris Plains facility, our flagship CAR T manufacturing site, had commercial manufacturing and shipping success rates of 96% and 99%, respectively, between January and August 2021,” according to the spokesperson.

Legend and Janssen, the companies behind Carvykti, one of the two approved cell products for myeloma, which launched earlier in 2022, said that they have continued to activate certified treatment centers in a phased approach that will enable them to expand availability throughout 2022 and beyond.

“This phased approach was designed to ensure the highest level of predictability and reliability for the patient and the certified treatment centers,” the spokesperson said. “We understand the urgency for patients in need of Carvyki and are committed to doing everything we can to accelerate our ability to deliver this important cell therapy in a reliable and timely manner.”

With regard to the industry-wide supply shortage of lentivirus, Legend and Janssen say they have put in place multiple processes to address the shortage, “including enhancing our own internal manufacturing capabilities of this essential drug substance, to ensure sufficient and sustained supply.”
 

Incredibly exciting potential

Given the immense potential of CAR T-cell therapy, the supply shortage that myeloma patients are experiencing is all the more poignant and distressing. While not everyone benefits, some patients for whom every other therapy failed and who were facing hospice have had dramatic results.

“Incredibly exciting with unbelievable potential” was how one expert described these new therapies when the first product was about to enter the marketplace. Since then, six CAR T-cell therapies have received regulatory approval for an ever-increasing range of hematologic malignancies.

But these CAR T-cell therapies have their own set of adverse events, which can be serious and even life-threatening. In addition, not all patients become cancer free, although long-term data are impressive.

A study that included one of the longest follow-ups to date was reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The researchers reported that remissions lasted over 9 years for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia who underwent treatment with Kite’s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta). This review included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved for 54% of patients, and partial remission was achieved for 22%.

The results with CAR T-cell therapy in multiple myeloma are not quite as impressive, but even so, the clinical data that supported the approval of Abecma showed that a third of patients, who had previously received a median of six prior therapies, achieved a complete response.

At the time of the Abecma approval, the lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

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

Some patients with blood cancers for whom all other therapeutic options have been exhausted have one final chance of getting rid of their disease: treatment with chimeric antigen-receptor (CAR) T cells.

Described as a “living drug,” the treatment involves genetically engineering the patient’s own blood cells and reinfusing them back into their system. These CAR T cells then hunt down and destroy cancer cells; in some cases, they manage to eradicate the disease completely.

About half of patients with leukemia or lymphoma and about a third of those with multiple myeloma who receive this treatment have a complete remission and achieve a functional “cure.”

But not all patients who could benefit from this therapy are able to get it. Some are spending months on waiting lists, often deteriorating while they wait. These patients have exhausted all other therapeutic options, and many are facing hospice and death.

The scope of this problem was illustrated by a recent survey of the centers that are certified to deliver this complex therapy.

The survey was led by Yi Lin, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for the cellular therapy program. It was published as an abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology recently, although it was not presented there.

“We wanted to find out just how widespread this problem is,” Dr. Lin said, adding: “There had been nothing in the literature thus far about it.”

The team contacted 20 centers across the United States and received responses from 17. Results showed that the median time on the waiting list was 6 months and that only 25% of patients eventually received CAR T-cell therapy. An additional 25% were able to enter a CAR T clinical trial. The remaining 50% of patients either were enrolled in a different type of trial, entered hospice, or died.

For patient selection, all centers reported using a committee of experienced physicians to ensure consistency. They employed different ethical principles for selection. Some centers sought to maximize the total benefit, such as selecting the patients most likely to achieve leukapheresis or a clinical response, while others based their decisions on the time patients spent on waiting list or gave priority to the patients who were the “worst off” with the most limited therapeutic options.
 

Shortage affecting mostly myeloma patients

The shortages in CAR T-cell therapies primarily involve the products used for patients with multiple myeloma.

The problem has not, as yet, noticeably spilled over to lymphoma and leukemia treatments, which use a slightly different type of CAR T-cell therapy (it targets CD19, whereas the cell therapies used for myeloma target BCMA).

“We have backlog of myeloma patients who don’t have access,” said Nina Shah, MD, a hematologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “We have only four slots for the two myeloma products but about 50-60 eligible patients.”

Long waiting times for CAR T cells for myeloma have been an issue ever since the first of these products appeared on the market: idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by Bluebird Bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb. “As soon as it became available in March 2021, we had people waiting and limits on our access to it,” Dr. Shah said.

A second CAR T-cell therapy for myeloma, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti), developed by Janssen and Legend Biotech, received approval in February 2022. While that helped provide centers with a few more slots, it wasn’t sufficient to cut waiting times, and the demand for these myeloma therapies continues to outstrip the capacity to produce CAR-T products in a timely manner.

“For myeloma, the demand is very high, as most patients are not cured from any other existing myeloma therapies, and most patients will make it to fifth-line therapy where the two CAR T-cell products are approved right now,” said Krina K. Patel, MD, medical director of the department of lymphoma/myeloma in the division of cancer medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We likely have 10 eligible CAR-T myeloma patients each month at our center,” she said, “but were getting two slots per month for the past 8 months, and now are getting four slots a month.”

“Our clinic has also experienced the impact of the low number of manufacturing slots offered to each cancer center for some CAR T-cell products,” said David Maloney, MD, PhD, medical director, Cellular Immunotherapy and Bezos Family Immunotherapy Clinic, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

He noted that, as with other cancer centers, for multiple myeloma they are provided a specific number of manufacturing slots for each treatment. “Our providers discuss which patients are most appropriate for available slots for that month,” said Dr. Maloney.

“Additionally, juggling patient schedules may be required to address the extended manufacturing time for some products. In some cases, clinical trials may be available in a more timely fashion for appropriate patients, and in some cases, switching to an alternative product is possible,” he commented.
 

Complex causes behind bottleneck

The cause of the current bottleneck for myeloma patients is complex. It stems from a shortage of raw materials and supply chain restraints, among other things.

While the biggest impact of shortages has been on patients with multiple myeloma, Dr. Patel pointed out that these constraints are also affecting patients with lymphoma at her institution, but to a lesser degree.

“This is multifactorial as to why, but most of the issues arise from manufacturing,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Initially, the FDA limited how many slots each new product could have per month, then there was a viral vector shortage, and then the quality-control process the FDA requires takes longer than the manufacturing of the cells actually do.”

On top of that, “we have about a 5% manufacturing fail rate so far,” she added. Such failures occur when the cells taken from a patient cannot be converted into CAR T cells for therapy.

Matthew J. Frigault, MD, from the Center for Cellular Therapies, Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, explained that the growing excitement about the potential for cellular therapy and recent approvals for these products for use in earlier lines of treatment have increased demand for them.

There are also problems regarding supply. Manufacture and delivery of CAR T is complicated and takes time to scale up, Dr. Frigault pointed out. “Therefore, we are seeing limited access, more so for the BCMA-directed therapies [which are used for myeloma].”

The shortages and delays likely involve two main factors. “For the newer indications, there is a significant backlog of patients who have been waiting for these therapies and have not been able to access them in the clinical trial setting, and manufacturing is extremely complicated and not easily scaled up,” he said.

“That being said, manufacturers are trying to increase the number of available manufacturing slots and decrease the time needed to manufacture cells,” Dr. Frigault commented.

Delays in access to myeloma CAR T-cell therapy are also affecting patient care at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “We have had about one slot every 2 months for Abecma,” noted Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase. “For Carvykti, there are only 32 certified centers in [the] U.S., and access is very limited.”

Dr. Fung explained that they have had to offer alternative treatments to many of their patients. “There are rumors that there’s shortage in obtaining raw materials, such as the virus used for transduction, although we have not encountered any problems in other CAR T products used for lymphomas.”
 

Pharma companies trying to meet the demand

This news organization reached out to the manufacturers of CAR T products. All have reported that they are doing what they feasibly can to ramp up production.

“The complexity of delivering CAR T-cell therapies is unlike any other traditional biologic or small-molecule medicine, using a patient’s own cells to start a highly sophisticated and personalized manufacturing process,” commented a spokesperson for BMS, which has two CAR T-cell products currently on the market.

“In this nascent field of cell therapy, we continue to evolve every day, addressing supply and manufacturing challenges head on by applying key learnings across our three state-of-the-art cell therapy facilities and two new facilities in progress.

“We have been encouraged by a steady increase in our manufacturing capacity, and we continue efforts to ramp up further to meet the demand for our cell therapies,” the BMS spokesperson commented. “We have already seen improvements in the stabilization of vector supply and expect additional improvements in capacity in the second half of 2022.”

Novartis said much the same thing. They have a “comprehensive, integrated global CAR-T manufacturing footprint that strengthens the flexibility, resilience, and sustainability of the Novartis manufacturing and supply chain. Together with an improved manufacturing process, we are confident in our ability to meet patient demand with timely delivery,” according to a Novartis spokesperson.

The spokesperson also pointed out that the company has continuously incorporated process improvements that have significantly increased manufacturing capacity and success rates for patients in need of CAR T cells.

“Data presented at [the] American Society of Hematology annual meeting in 2021 showed the Novartis Morris Plains facility, our flagship CAR T manufacturing site, had commercial manufacturing and shipping success rates of 96% and 99%, respectively, between January and August 2021,” according to the spokesperson.

Legend and Janssen, the companies behind Carvykti, one of the two approved cell products for myeloma, which launched earlier in 2022, said that they have continued to activate certified treatment centers in a phased approach that will enable them to expand availability throughout 2022 and beyond.

“This phased approach was designed to ensure the highest level of predictability and reliability for the patient and the certified treatment centers,” the spokesperson said. “We understand the urgency for patients in need of Carvyki and are committed to doing everything we can to accelerate our ability to deliver this important cell therapy in a reliable and timely manner.”

With regard to the industry-wide supply shortage of lentivirus, Legend and Janssen say they have put in place multiple processes to address the shortage, “including enhancing our own internal manufacturing capabilities of this essential drug substance, to ensure sufficient and sustained supply.”
 

Incredibly exciting potential

Given the immense potential of CAR T-cell therapy, the supply shortage that myeloma patients are experiencing is all the more poignant and distressing. While not everyone benefits, some patients for whom every other therapy failed and who were facing hospice have had dramatic results.

“Incredibly exciting with unbelievable potential” was how one expert described these new therapies when the first product was about to enter the marketplace. Since then, six CAR T-cell therapies have received regulatory approval for an ever-increasing range of hematologic malignancies.

But these CAR T-cell therapies have their own set of adverse events, which can be serious and even life-threatening. In addition, not all patients become cancer free, although long-term data are impressive.

A study that included one of the longest follow-ups to date was reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The researchers reported that remissions lasted over 9 years for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia who underwent treatment with Kite’s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta). This review included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved for 54% of patients, and partial remission was achieved for 22%.

The results with CAR T-cell therapy in multiple myeloma are not quite as impressive, but even so, the clinical data that supported the approval of Abecma showed that a third of patients, who had previously received a median of six prior therapies, achieved a complete response.

At the time of the Abecma approval, the lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

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

Some patients with blood cancers for whom all other therapeutic options have been exhausted have one final chance of getting rid of their disease: treatment with chimeric antigen-receptor (CAR) T cells.

Described as a “living drug,” the treatment involves genetically engineering the patient’s own blood cells and reinfusing them back into their system. These CAR T cells then hunt down and destroy cancer cells; in some cases, they manage to eradicate the disease completely.

About half of patients with leukemia or lymphoma and about a third of those with multiple myeloma who receive this treatment have a complete remission and achieve a functional “cure.”

But not all patients who could benefit from this therapy are able to get it. Some are spending months on waiting lists, often deteriorating while they wait. These patients have exhausted all other therapeutic options, and many are facing hospice and death.

The scope of this problem was illustrated by a recent survey of the centers that are certified to deliver this complex therapy.

The survey was led by Yi Lin, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for the cellular therapy program. It was published as an abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology recently, although it was not presented there.

“We wanted to find out just how widespread this problem is,” Dr. Lin said, adding: “There had been nothing in the literature thus far about it.”

The team contacted 20 centers across the United States and received responses from 17. Results showed that the median time on the waiting list was 6 months and that only 25% of patients eventually received CAR T-cell therapy. An additional 25% were able to enter a CAR T clinical trial. The remaining 50% of patients either were enrolled in a different type of trial, entered hospice, or died.

For patient selection, all centers reported using a committee of experienced physicians to ensure consistency. They employed different ethical principles for selection. Some centers sought to maximize the total benefit, such as selecting the patients most likely to achieve leukapheresis or a clinical response, while others based their decisions on the time patients spent on waiting list or gave priority to the patients who were the “worst off” with the most limited therapeutic options.
 

Shortage affecting mostly myeloma patients

The shortages in CAR T-cell therapies primarily involve the products used for patients with multiple myeloma.

The problem has not, as yet, noticeably spilled over to lymphoma and leukemia treatments, which use a slightly different type of CAR T-cell therapy (it targets CD19, whereas the cell therapies used for myeloma target BCMA).

“We have backlog of myeloma patients who don’t have access,” said Nina Shah, MD, a hematologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “We have only four slots for the two myeloma products but about 50-60 eligible patients.”

Long waiting times for CAR T cells for myeloma have been an issue ever since the first of these products appeared on the market: idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by Bluebird Bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb. “As soon as it became available in March 2021, we had people waiting and limits on our access to it,” Dr. Shah said.

A second CAR T-cell therapy for myeloma, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti), developed by Janssen and Legend Biotech, received approval in February 2022. While that helped provide centers with a few more slots, it wasn’t sufficient to cut waiting times, and the demand for these myeloma therapies continues to outstrip the capacity to produce CAR-T products in a timely manner.

“For myeloma, the demand is very high, as most patients are not cured from any other existing myeloma therapies, and most patients will make it to fifth-line therapy where the two CAR T-cell products are approved right now,” said Krina K. Patel, MD, medical director of the department of lymphoma/myeloma in the division of cancer medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We likely have 10 eligible CAR-T myeloma patients each month at our center,” she said, “but were getting two slots per month for the past 8 months, and now are getting four slots a month.”

“Our clinic has also experienced the impact of the low number of manufacturing slots offered to each cancer center for some CAR T-cell products,” said David Maloney, MD, PhD, medical director, Cellular Immunotherapy and Bezos Family Immunotherapy Clinic, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

He noted that, as with other cancer centers, for multiple myeloma they are provided a specific number of manufacturing slots for each treatment. “Our providers discuss which patients are most appropriate for available slots for that month,” said Dr. Maloney.

“Additionally, juggling patient schedules may be required to address the extended manufacturing time for some products. In some cases, clinical trials may be available in a more timely fashion for appropriate patients, and in some cases, switching to an alternative product is possible,” he commented.
 

Complex causes behind bottleneck

The cause of the current bottleneck for myeloma patients is complex. It stems from a shortage of raw materials and supply chain restraints, among other things.

While the biggest impact of shortages has been on patients with multiple myeloma, Dr. Patel pointed out that these constraints are also affecting patients with lymphoma at her institution, but to a lesser degree.

“This is multifactorial as to why, but most of the issues arise from manufacturing,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Initially, the FDA limited how many slots each new product could have per month, then there was a viral vector shortage, and then the quality-control process the FDA requires takes longer than the manufacturing of the cells actually do.”

On top of that, “we have about a 5% manufacturing fail rate so far,” she added. Such failures occur when the cells taken from a patient cannot be converted into CAR T cells for therapy.

Matthew J. Frigault, MD, from the Center for Cellular Therapies, Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, explained that the growing excitement about the potential for cellular therapy and recent approvals for these products for use in earlier lines of treatment have increased demand for them.

There are also problems regarding supply. Manufacture and delivery of CAR T is complicated and takes time to scale up, Dr. Frigault pointed out. “Therefore, we are seeing limited access, more so for the BCMA-directed therapies [which are used for myeloma].”

The shortages and delays likely involve two main factors. “For the newer indications, there is a significant backlog of patients who have been waiting for these therapies and have not been able to access them in the clinical trial setting, and manufacturing is extremely complicated and not easily scaled up,” he said.

“That being said, manufacturers are trying to increase the number of available manufacturing slots and decrease the time needed to manufacture cells,” Dr. Frigault commented.

Delays in access to myeloma CAR T-cell therapy are also affecting patient care at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “We have had about one slot every 2 months for Abecma,” noted Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase. “For Carvykti, there are only 32 certified centers in [the] U.S., and access is very limited.”

Dr. Fung explained that they have had to offer alternative treatments to many of their patients. “There are rumors that there’s shortage in obtaining raw materials, such as the virus used for transduction, although we have not encountered any problems in other CAR T products used for lymphomas.”
 

Pharma companies trying to meet the demand

This news organization reached out to the manufacturers of CAR T products. All have reported that they are doing what they feasibly can to ramp up production.

“The complexity of delivering CAR T-cell therapies is unlike any other traditional biologic or small-molecule medicine, using a patient’s own cells to start a highly sophisticated and personalized manufacturing process,” commented a spokesperson for BMS, which has two CAR T-cell products currently on the market.

“In this nascent field of cell therapy, we continue to evolve every day, addressing supply and manufacturing challenges head on by applying key learnings across our three state-of-the-art cell therapy facilities and two new facilities in progress.

“We have been encouraged by a steady increase in our manufacturing capacity, and we continue efforts to ramp up further to meet the demand for our cell therapies,” the BMS spokesperson commented. “We have already seen improvements in the stabilization of vector supply and expect additional improvements in capacity in the second half of 2022.”

Novartis said much the same thing. They have a “comprehensive, integrated global CAR-T manufacturing footprint that strengthens the flexibility, resilience, and sustainability of the Novartis manufacturing and supply chain. Together with an improved manufacturing process, we are confident in our ability to meet patient demand with timely delivery,” according to a Novartis spokesperson.

The spokesperson also pointed out that the company has continuously incorporated process improvements that have significantly increased manufacturing capacity and success rates for patients in need of CAR T cells.

“Data presented at [the] American Society of Hematology annual meeting in 2021 showed the Novartis Morris Plains facility, our flagship CAR T manufacturing site, had commercial manufacturing and shipping success rates of 96% and 99%, respectively, between January and August 2021,” according to the spokesperson.

Legend and Janssen, the companies behind Carvykti, one of the two approved cell products for myeloma, which launched earlier in 2022, said that they have continued to activate certified treatment centers in a phased approach that will enable them to expand availability throughout 2022 and beyond.

“This phased approach was designed to ensure the highest level of predictability and reliability for the patient and the certified treatment centers,” the spokesperson said. “We understand the urgency for patients in need of Carvyki and are committed to doing everything we can to accelerate our ability to deliver this important cell therapy in a reliable and timely manner.”

With regard to the industry-wide supply shortage of lentivirus, Legend and Janssen say they have put in place multiple processes to address the shortage, “including enhancing our own internal manufacturing capabilities of this essential drug substance, to ensure sufficient and sustained supply.”
 

Incredibly exciting potential

Given the immense potential of CAR T-cell therapy, the supply shortage that myeloma patients are experiencing is all the more poignant and distressing. While not everyone benefits, some patients for whom every other therapy failed and who were facing hospice have had dramatic results.

“Incredibly exciting with unbelievable potential” was how one expert described these new therapies when the first product was about to enter the marketplace. Since then, six CAR T-cell therapies have received regulatory approval for an ever-increasing range of hematologic malignancies.

But these CAR T-cell therapies have their own set of adverse events, which can be serious and even life-threatening. In addition, not all patients become cancer free, although long-term data are impressive.

A study that included one of the longest follow-ups to date was reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The researchers reported that remissions lasted over 9 years for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia who underwent treatment with Kite’s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta). This review included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved for 54% of patients, and partial remission was achieved for 22%.

The results with CAR T-cell therapy in multiple myeloma are not quite as impressive, but even so, the clinical data that supported the approval of Abecma showed that a third of patients, who had previously received a median of six prior therapies, achieved a complete response.

At the time of the Abecma approval, the lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

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

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab has shown promise as adjuvant therapy for stage IIB and IIC melanoma, shows the first interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study recently published in The Lancet.

The findings meet an unmet need as the recurrence risk in stage IIB and IIC melanoma is “underrecognized,” said author Georgina Long, MD, comedical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney.

In fact, their risk of recurrence is similar to patients with stage IIIB disease, wrote David Killock, PhD, in a related commentary published in Nature Reviews.

The adjuvant treatment resulted in an 89% recurrence-free survival in patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 83% of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0066). These findings were used as the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for this patient population in December 2021.

Despite the positive findings, Dr. Killock called for more research on distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life data to “establish the true clinical benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab.”

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Long presented the third interim analysis which showed pembrolizumab reduced recurrence and distant metastases at 24 months, although the clinical benefit was relatively small at an approximately 8% improvement in recurrence-free survival and about a 6% improvement in distant metastasis-free survival. About 83% in the pembrolizumab group had treatment-related toxicities versus 64% in the placebo group. There were no deaths caused by treatment. About 90% of pembrolizumab-related endocrinopathies led to long-term hormone replacement.

In a discussion that followed the presentation at ASCO, Charlotte Eielson Ariyan, MD, PhD, said the results are bittersweet. Higher-risk stage IIC patients have a risk of recurrence of about 40%. “It’s high, but the absolute risk reduction is about 8%. This is a very personalized discussion with the patient and the physician in understanding their risk of toxicity is about 17% and higher than their absolute risk reduction with the treatment. For me, this is a bitter pill to swallow because you’re treating people longer and you’re not sure if you’re really helping them. Until we can further define who the highest-risk patients are, I think it’s hard to give it to everyone,” said Dr. Ariyan, who is a surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In addition to weighing short-term benefits and toxicity, there are longer-term concerns. Toxicity experienced from PD-1 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting could impact future treatment decisions. “We’re very lucky here in melanoma to know that systemic therapies are effective and we can cure people who recur. I would argue this is why we probably will never really see a difference in the survival benefit in this group because people who cross over will probably do well,” Dr. Ariyan said.

During the Q&A session, Vernon Sondek, MD, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, encouraged physician colleagues to have an open mind about treatments. “Beware of dogma. We thought that adjuvant immunotherapy works much better in patients with ulcerated primary tumors. That’s a dogma in some parts of the world. Yet the T4a patients in KEYNOTE-716 dramatically outperformed the ulcerated T3b and T4b [patients]. We still don’t know what we don’t know.”
 

The study details

KEYNOTE-716 included 976 patients 12 years or older with newly diagnosed completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma with a negative sentinel lymph node. Patients were randomized to placebo or 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg in pediatric patients, over 17 cycles. Almost 40% of patients were age 65 or older. T3b and T4b were the most common melanoma subcategories at 41% and 35%, respectively.

The planned third interim analysis occurred after the occurrence of 146 distant metastases. After a median follow-up of 27.4 months, distant metastasis-free survival favored the pembrolizumab group (HR, 0.64; P = .0029). At 24 months, the pembrolizumab group had a higher distant metastasis-free survival at 88.1% versus 82.2% and a lower recurrence rate at 81.2% versus 72.8% (HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.84).

At 24 months, only the T4a patients had a statistically significant reduction in distant metastases at 58% (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96), although there were numerical reductions in T3a (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22) and T4b (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.33) patients. Of patients experiencing a distant metastasis, 73% of the placebo group had a first distant metastasis to the lung compared with 49% of the pembrolizumab group.

Dr. Long has held consulting or advisory roles for Merck Sharpe & Dohme, which funded this study.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab has shown promise as adjuvant therapy for stage IIB and IIC melanoma, shows the first interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study recently published in The Lancet.

The findings meet an unmet need as the recurrence risk in stage IIB and IIC melanoma is “underrecognized,” said author Georgina Long, MD, comedical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney.

In fact, their risk of recurrence is similar to patients with stage IIIB disease, wrote David Killock, PhD, in a related commentary published in Nature Reviews.

The adjuvant treatment resulted in an 89% recurrence-free survival in patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 83% of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0066). These findings were used as the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for this patient population in December 2021.

Despite the positive findings, Dr. Killock called for more research on distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life data to “establish the true clinical benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab.”

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Long presented the third interim analysis which showed pembrolizumab reduced recurrence and distant metastases at 24 months, although the clinical benefit was relatively small at an approximately 8% improvement in recurrence-free survival and about a 6% improvement in distant metastasis-free survival. About 83% in the pembrolizumab group had treatment-related toxicities versus 64% in the placebo group. There were no deaths caused by treatment. About 90% of pembrolizumab-related endocrinopathies led to long-term hormone replacement.

In a discussion that followed the presentation at ASCO, Charlotte Eielson Ariyan, MD, PhD, said the results are bittersweet. Higher-risk stage IIC patients have a risk of recurrence of about 40%. “It’s high, but the absolute risk reduction is about 8%. This is a very personalized discussion with the patient and the physician in understanding their risk of toxicity is about 17% and higher than their absolute risk reduction with the treatment. For me, this is a bitter pill to swallow because you’re treating people longer and you’re not sure if you’re really helping them. Until we can further define who the highest-risk patients are, I think it’s hard to give it to everyone,” said Dr. Ariyan, who is a surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In addition to weighing short-term benefits and toxicity, there are longer-term concerns. Toxicity experienced from PD-1 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting could impact future treatment decisions. “We’re very lucky here in melanoma to know that systemic therapies are effective and we can cure people who recur. I would argue this is why we probably will never really see a difference in the survival benefit in this group because people who cross over will probably do well,” Dr. Ariyan said.

During the Q&A session, Vernon Sondek, MD, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, encouraged physician colleagues to have an open mind about treatments. “Beware of dogma. We thought that adjuvant immunotherapy works much better in patients with ulcerated primary tumors. That’s a dogma in some parts of the world. Yet the T4a patients in KEYNOTE-716 dramatically outperformed the ulcerated T3b and T4b [patients]. We still don’t know what we don’t know.”
 

The study details

KEYNOTE-716 included 976 patients 12 years or older with newly diagnosed completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma with a negative sentinel lymph node. Patients were randomized to placebo or 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg in pediatric patients, over 17 cycles. Almost 40% of patients were age 65 or older. T3b and T4b were the most common melanoma subcategories at 41% and 35%, respectively.

The planned third interim analysis occurred after the occurrence of 146 distant metastases. After a median follow-up of 27.4 months, distant metastasis-free survival favored the pembrolizumab group (HR, 0.64; P = .0029). At 24 months, the pembrolizumab group had a higher distant metastasis-free survival at 88.1% versus 82.2% and a lower recurrence rate at 81.2% versus 72.8% (HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.84).

At 24 months, only the T4a patients had a statistically significant reduction in distant metastases at 58% (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96), although there were numerical reductions in T3a (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22) and T4b (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.33) patients. Of patients experiencing a distant metastasis, 73% of the placebo group had a first distant metastasis to the lung compared with 49% of the pembrolizumab group.

Dr. Long has held consulting or advisory roles for Merck Sharpe & Dohme, which funded this study.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab has shown promise as adjuvant therapy for stage IIB and IIC melanoma, shows the first interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study recently published in The Lancet.

The findings meet an unmet need as the recurrence risk in stage IIB and IIC melanoma is “underrecognized,” said author Georgina Long, MD, comedical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney.

In fact, their risk of recurrence is similar to patients with stage IIIB disease, wrote David Killock, PhD, in a related commentary published in Nature Reviews.

The adjuvant treatment resulted in an 89% recurrence-free survival in patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 83% of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0066). These findings were used as the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for this patient population in December 2021.

Despite the positive findings, Dr. Killock called for more research on distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life data to “establish the true clinical benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab.”

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Long presented the third interim analysis which showed pembrolizumab reduced recurrence and distant metastases at 24 months, although the clinical benefit was relatively small at an approximately 8% improvement in recurrence-free survival and about a 6% improvement in distant metastasis-free survival. About 83% in the pembrolizumab group had treatment-related toxicities versus 64% in the placebo group. There were no deaths caused by treatment. About 90% of pembrolizumab-related endocrinopathies led to long-term hormone replacement.

In a discussion that followed the presentation at ASCO, Charlotte Eielson Ariyan, MD, PhD, said the results are bittersweet. Higher-risk stage IIC patients have a risk of recurrence of about 40%. “It’s high, but the absolute risk reduction is about 8%. This is a very personalized discussion with the patient and the physician in understanding their risk of toxicity is about 17% and higher than their absolute risk reduction with the treatment. For me, this is a bitter pill to swallow because you’re treating people longer and you’re not sure if you’re really helping them. Until we can further define who the highest-risk patients are, I think it’s hard to give it to everyone,” said Dr. Ariyan, who is a surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In addition to weighing short-term benefits and toxicity, there are longer-term concerns. Toxicity experienced from PD-1 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting could impact future treatment decisions. “We’re very lucky here in melanoma to know that systemic therapies are effective and we can cure people who recur. I would argue this is why we probably will never really see a difference in the survival benefit in this group because people who cross over will probably do well,” Dr. Ariyan said.

During the Q&A session, Vernon Sondek, MD, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, encouraged physician colleagues to have an open mind about treatments. “Beware of dogma. We thought that adjuvant immunotherapy works much better in patients with ulcerated primary tumors. That’s a dogma in some parts of the world. Yet the T4a patients in KEYNOTE-716 dramatically outperformed the ulcerated T3b and T4b [patients]. We still don’t know what we don’t know.”
 

The study details

KEYNOTE-716 included 976 patients 12 years or older with newly diagnosed completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma with a negative sentinel lymph node. Patients were randomized to placebo or 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg in pediatric patients, over 17 cycles. Almost 40% of patients were age 65 or older. T3b and T4b were the most common melanoma subcategories at 41% and 35%, respectively.

The planned third interim analysis occurred after the occurrence of 146 distant metastases. After a median follow-up of 27.4 months, distant metastasis-free survival favored the pembrolizumab group (HR, 0.64; P = .0029). At 24 months, the pembrolizumab group had a higher distant metastasis-free survival at 88.1% versus 82.2% and a lower recurrence rate at 81.2% versus 72.8% (HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.84).

At 24 months, only the T4a patients had a statistically significant reduction in distant metastases at 58% (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96), although there were numerical reductions in T3a (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22) and T4b (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.33) patients. Of patients experiencing a distant metastasis, 73% of the placebo group had a first distant metastasis to the lung compared with 49% of the pembrolizumab group.

Dr. Long has held consulting or advisory roles for Merck Sharpe & Dohme, which funded this study.

In oncology, delayed care may result in a failed opportunity to achieve remission. Delays in diagnosis can result in patients having to undergo more extensive surgery, radiation exposure, or more intensive drug therapy than if their disease had been detected at an early stage.

Now, researchers at Harvard Medical School, Boston, report that patients with high-deductible health insurance plans are significantly more likely to have a delay in diagnosis of metastatic cancer, compared with patients with low-deductible plans.

Using national insurance claims data, the authors conducted an observational study to examine what happened when some workers with employer-based insurance were switched from low-deductible to high-deductible plans, compared with a control group of workers who remained on low-deductible plans.

After the switch, workers shunted into high-deductible plans had a longer time to first diagnosis of a metastatic cancer, indicating delayed detection of advanced disease, compared with controls. The difference translated into a delay in diagnosis of metastatic disease of nearly 5 months, reported Nico Trad, BA, a fourth-year medical student at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“The takeaway here is that these plans were associated with delayed detection of metastatic cancer. We did not assess the mechanism, but it’s a reasonable assumption to make that increased cost-sharing is having some adverse impacts on people’s willingness to seek care. And although we didn’t study potential impacts, we might anticipate that a delayed diagnosis might also lead to delayed engagement with palliative care,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“A delay in initiation of symptom-relieving therapies and a delayed presentation might also lead to greater dissemination of disease throughout the body, which also has the potential to limit therapeutic options,” he added.
 

‘Deductible relief day’

Mr. Trad said that in 2022 more than half of employees are covered by high-deductible health plans, compared with only about 10% in 2006.

This major shift in cost burden coincided with President Joseph Biden’s announcement in early 2022 of the “Cancer Moonshot,” program with the goal of reducing cancer mortality by 50% over the next 25 years.

“Part of that is cancer prevention and control, which involves timely detection of cancer so that we can treat it early and have better outcomes,” he said.

High-deductible health plans ostensibly provide motivation for patients to shop for lower-priced care and avoid unnecessary or low-quality care, but making patients shell out more upfront before their insurance kicks in, while it reduced health care utilization, can also reduce the quality of care, he said.

In 2022, “Deductible Relief Day,” the day in which the average patient has satisfied the deductible and insurance starts to pick up more of the tab, occurred in mid-May, compared with late February in 2006.
 

Insurance claims data

Mr. Trad and colleagues used health insurance claims data from a nationally representative cohort of privately insured patients in a national commercial and Medicare Advantage database. They excluded patients 65 and older who were eligible for Medicare because it does not have high-deductible options.

The study cohort included 345,401 adults from the ages of 18 to 64 whose employers mandated a switch from a low-deductible plan which was defined as $500 or less, to a high-deductible plan defined as $1,000 or more. Controls were 1,654,775 contemporaneous adults whose employers offered only low-deductible plans. Both groups had a 1-year baseline period when all members were enrolled in low deductible plans.

To minimize the possibility of confounding, the investigators matched the participants by age, gender, race/ethnicity, morbidity according to Adjusted Clinical Group score, poverty level, geographic region, employer size, baseline primary cancer, baseline medical and pharmacy costs, and follow-up duration.

During the baseline period, the hazard ratio for time to a first observed metastatic cancer diagnosis in the main cohort, compared with controls, was 0.96 with a nonsignificant P value, indicating no difference in the time to diagnosis between the groups.

During a maximum 13.5 years of follow-up, however, the participants who had been switched after a year to a high-deductible plan had a significantly longer time to first metastatic diagnosis (HR, 0.88; P = .01), indicating delayed diagnosis relative to controls. This difference translated to a delay of 4.6 months associated with the higher out-of-pocket costs plans.

According to a systematic review and meta-analysis published online in 2020, a 1-month delay in treatment for many types of cancer can translate into a 6% to 13% higher risk for death, a risk that continues to increase with further delays.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of retrospective claims-based data, which not contain information on how the patients fared after diagnosis.

“I would say in terms of policy relevance that this really points to the need for new and innovative insurance models that, No. 1, reduce the cost-sharing burden for patients so that they’re not deterred from seeking care, and No. 2, that align rather than contradict the goal of improving population-level survival from cancer,” Mr. Trad said.
 

Further evidence of a flawed system

The study adds to an already strong body of evidence showing that high-deductible plans can have a negative impact on health, said Sara R. Collins, vice president for health care coverage and access at the Commonwealth Fund, a New York–based private foundation dedicated to improving health care.

“This is really the latest evidence on top of years of research that shows that high-deductible health plans lead people to make decisions that are not in the best interest of their health,” said Ms. Collins, who is not affiliated with the study presented at ASCO.

“We have a health care cost problem in the United States that far exceeds that of other high-income countries. Insurers try to solve it by shifting the costs to consumers and using other measures to restrict people’s use of health care, and often needed health care like this. The result is less access to needed care, and long-term adverse health consequences and their associated costs to patients and the health system generally,” she said.

The real driver of health care costs is not utilization, but the prices that insurers and providers negotiate in their service contracts, she explained.

“Prices are the central problem, insurers have control over those prices in their negotiations with providers. So unless we can gain control of that driver, patients are going to continue to suffer unnecessarily from both the short- and long-term effects of insurers who use tools to reduce their access to care,” she said.

In oncology, delayed care may result in a failed opportunity to achieve remission. Delays in diagnosis can result in patients having to undergo more extensive surgery, radiation exposure, or more intensive drug therapy than if their disease had been detected at an early stage.

Now, researchers at Harvard Medical School, Boston, report that patients with high-deductible health insurance plans are significantly more likely to have a delay in diagnosis of metastatic cancer, compared with patients with low-deductible plans.

Using national insurance claims data, the authors conducted an observational study to examine what happened when some workers with employer-based insurance were switched from low-deductible to high-deductible plans, compared with a control group of workers who remained on low-deductible plans.

After the switch, workers shunted into high-deductible plans had a longer time to first diagnosis of a metastatic cancer, indicating delayed detection of advanced disease, compared with controls. The difference translated into a delay in diagnosis of metastatic disease of nearly 5 months, reported Nico Trad, BA, a fourth-year medical student at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“The takeaway here is that these plans were associated with delayed detection of metastatic cancer. We did not assess the mechanism, but it’s a reasonable assumption to make that increased cost-sharing is having some adverse impacts on people’s willingness to seek care. And although we didn’t study potential impacts, we might anticipate that a delayed diagnosis might also lead to delayed engagement with palliative care,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“A delay in initiation of symptom-relieving therapies and a delayed presentation might also lead to greater dissemination of disease throughout the body, which also has the potential to limit therapeutic options,” he added.
 

‘Deductible relief day’

Mr. Trad said that in 2022 more than half of employees are covered by high-deductible health plans, compared with only about 10% in 2006.

This major shift in cost burden coincided with President Joseph Biden’s announcement in early 2022 of the “Cancer Moonshot,” program with the goal of reducing cancer mortality by 50% over the next 25 years.

“Part of that is cancer prevention and control, which involves timely detection of cancer so that we can treat it early and have better outcomes,” he said.

High-deductible health plans ostensibly provide motivation for patients to shop for lower-priced care and avoid unnecessary or low-quality care, but making patients shell out more upfront before their insurance kicks in, while it reduced health care utilization, can also reduce the quality of care, he said.

In 2022, “Deductible Relief Day,” the day in which the average patient has satisfied the deductible and insurance starts to pick up more of the tab, occurred in mid-May, compared with late February in 2006.
 

Insurance claims data

Mr. Trad and colleagues used health insurance claims data from a nationally representative cohort of privately insured patients in a national commercial and Medicare Advantage database. They excluded patients 65 and older who were eligible for Medicare because it does not have high-deductible options.

The study cohort included 345,401 adults from the ages of 18 to 64 whose employers mandated a switch from a low-deductible plan which was defined as $500 or less, to a high-deductible plan defined as $1,000 or more. Controls were 1,654,775 contemporaneous adults whose employers offered only low-deductible plans. Both groups had a 1-year baseline period when all members were enrolled in low deductible plans.

To minimize the possibility of confounding, the investigators matched the participants by age, gender, race/ethnicity, morbidity according to Adjusted Clinical Group score, poverty level, geographic region, employer size, baseline primary cancer, baseline medical and pharmacy costs, and follow-up duration.

During the baseline period, the hazard ratio for time to a first observed metastatic cancer diagnosis in the main cohort, compared with controls, was 0.96 with a nonsignificant P value, indicating no difference in the time to diagnosis between the groups.

During a maximum 13.5 years of follow-up, however, the participants who had been switched after a year to a high-deductible plan had a significantly longer time to first metastatic diagnosis (HR, 0.88; P = .01), indicating delayed diagnosis relative to controls. This difference translated to a delay of 4.6 months associated with the higher out-of-pocket costs plans.

According to a systematic review and meta-analysis published online in 2020, a 1-month delay in treatment for many types of cancer can translate into a 6% to 13% higher risk for death, a risk that continues to increase with further delays.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of retrospective claims-based data, which not contain information on how the patients fared after diagnosis.

“I would say in terms of policy relevance that this really points to the need for new and innovative insurance models that, No. 1, reduce the cost-sharing burden for patients so that they’re not deterred from seeking care, and No. 2, that align rather than contradict the goal of improving population-level survival from cancer,” Mr. Trad said.
 

Further evidence of a flawed system

The study adds to an already strong body of evidence showing that high-deductible plans can have a negative impact on health, said Sara R. Collins, vice president for health care coverage and access at the Commonwealth Fund, a New York–based private foundation dedicated to improving health care.

“This is really the latest evidence on top of years of research that shows that high-deductible health plans lead people to make decisions that are not in the best interest of their health,” said Ms. Collins, who is not affiliated with the study presented at ASCO.

“We have a health care cost problem in the United States that far exceeds that of other high-income countries. Insurers try to solve it by shifting the costs to consumers and using other measures to restrict people’s use of health care, and often needed health care like this. The result is less access to needed care, and long-term adverse health consequences and their associated costs to patients and the health system generally,” she said.

The real driver of health care costs is not utilization, but the prices that insurers and providers negotiate in their service contracts, she explained.

“Prices are the central problem, insurers have control over those prices in their negotiations with providers. So unless we can gain control of that driver, patients are going to continue to suffer unnecessarily from both the short- and long-term effects of insurers who use tools to reduce their access to care,” she said.

In oncology, delayed care may result in a failed opportunity to achieve remission. Delays in diagnosis can result in patients having to undergo more extensive surgery, radiation exposure, or more intensive drug therapy than if their disease had been detected at an early stage.

Now, researchers at Harvard Medical School, Boston, report that patients with high-deductible health insurance plans are significantly more likely to have a delay in diagnosis of metastatic cancer, compared with patients with low-deductible plans.

Using national insurance claims data, the authors conducted an observational study to examine what happened when some workers with employer-based insurance were switched from low-deductible to high-deductible plans, compared with a control group of workers who remained on low-deductible plans.

After the switch, workers shunted into high-deductible plans had a longer time to first diagnosis of a metastatic cancer, indicating delayed detection of advanced disease, compared with controls. The difference translated into a delay in diagnosis of metastatic disease of nearly 5 months, reported Nico Trad, BA, a fourth-year medical student at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“The takeaway here is that these plans were associated with delayed detection of metastatic cancer. We did not assess the mechanism, but it’s a reasonable assumption to make that increased cost-sharing is having some adverse impacts on people’s willingness to seek care. And although we didn’t study potential impacts, we might anticipate that a delayed diagnosis might also lead to delayed engagement with palliative care,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“A delay in initiation of symptom-relieving therapies and a delayed presentation might also lead to greater dissemination of disease throughout the body, which also has the potential to limit therapeutic options,” he added.
 

‘Deductible relief day’

Mr. Trad said that in 2022 more than half of employees are covered by high-deductible health plans, compared with only about 10% in 2006.

This major shift in cost burden coincided with President Joseph Biden’s announcement in early 2022 of the “Cancer Moonshot,” program with the goal of reducing cancer mortality by 50% over the next 25 years.

“Part of that is cancer prevention and control, which involves timely detection of cancer so that we can treat it early and have better outcomes,” he said.

High-deductible health plans ostensibly provide motivation for patients to shop for lower-priced care and avoid unnecessary or low-quality care, but making patients shell out more upfront before their insurance kicks in, while it reduced health care utilization, can also reduce the quality of care, he said.

In 2022, “Deductible Relief Day,” the day in which the average patient has satisfied the deductible and insurance starts to pick up more of the tab, occurred in mid-May, compared with late February in 2006.
 

Insurance claims data

Mr. Trad and colleagues used health insurance claims data from a nationally representative cohort of privately insured patients in a national commercial and Medicare Advantage database. They excluded patients 65 and older who were eligible for Medicare because it does not have high-deductible options.

The study cohort included 345,401 adults from the ages of 18 to 64 whose employers mandated a switch from a low-deductible plan which was defined as $500 or less, to a high-deductible plan defined as $1,000 or more. Controls were 1,654,775 contemporaneous adults whose employers offered only low-deductible plans. Both groups had a 1-year baseline period when all members were enrolled in low deductible plans.

To minimize the possibility of confounding, the investigators matched the participants by age, gender, race/ethnicity, morbidity according to Adjusted Clinical Group score, poverty level, geographic region, employer size, baseline primary cancer, baseline medical and pharmacy costs, and follow-up duration.

During the baseline period, the hazard ratio for time to a first observed metastatic cancer diagnosis in the main cohort, compared with controls, was 0.96 with a nonsignificant P value, indicating no difference in the time to diagnosis between the groups.

During a maximum 13.5 years of follow-up, however, the participants who had been switched after a year to a high-deductible plan had a significantly longer time to first metastatic diagnosis (HR, 0.88; P = .01), indicating delayed diagnosis relative to controls. This difference translated to a delay of 4.6 months associated with the higher out-of-pocket costs plans.

According to a systematic review and meta-analysis published online in 2020, a 1-month delay in treatment for many types of cancer can translate into a 6% to 13% higher risk for death, a risk that continues to increase with further delays.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of retrospective claims-based data, which not contain information on how the patients fared after diagnosis.

“I would say in terms of policy relevance that this really points to the need for new and innovative insurance models that, No. 1, reduce the cost-sharing burden for patients so that they’re not deterred from seeking care, and No. 2, that align rather than contradict the goal of improving population-level survival from cancer,” Mr. Trad said.
 

Further evidence of a flawed system

The study adds to an already strong body of evidence showing that high-deductible plans can have a negative impact on health, said Sara R. Collins, vice president for health care coverage and access at the Commonwealth Fund, a New York–based private foundation dedicated to improving health care.

“This is really the latest evidence on top of years of research that shows that high-deductible health plans lead people to make decisions that are not in the best interest of their health,” said Ms. Collins, who is not affiliated with the study presented at ASCO.

“We have a health care cost problem in the United States that far exceeds that of other high-income countries. Insurers try to solve it by shifting the costs to consumers and using other measures to restrict people’s use of health care, and often needed health care like this. The result is less access to needed care, and long-term adverse health consequences and their associated costs to patients and the health system generally,” she said.

The real driver of health care costs is not utilization, but the prices that insurers and providers negotiate in their service contracts, she explained.

“Prices are the central problem, insurers have control over those prices in their negotiations with providers. So unless we can gain control of that driver, patients are going to continue to suffer unnecessarily from both the short- and long-term effects of insurers who use tools to reduce their access to care,” she said.

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – Mortality rates from melanoma have fallen in recent years, likely due to the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors, according to a new analysis of the National Cancer Institute SEER database between 1975 and 2019.

“This is very encouraging data and represents the real-world effectiveness of these therapies. The cost of these therapies can be prohibitive for universal treatment access, so the ways to address the accessibility of these treatments and the health care costs need to be supported,” said lead author Navkirat Kaur Kahlon MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio). The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

According to the American Cancer Society, the 5-year mortality for regional melanoma metastasis is 68%, and 30% for distant metastasis. However, these numbers may underestimate current survival. “People now being diagnosed with melanoma may have a better outlook than these numbers show. Treatments have improved over time, and these numbers are based on people who were diagnosed and treated at least 5 years earlier,” the American Cancer Society wrote.

Other studies have found similar trends. According to Cancer Research UK, 5-year melanoma skin cancer survival approximately doubled, from 46% to 90%, between 1971 and 2010. And, 1-year survival increased from 74% to 96%, but these improvements predated immune checkpoint inhibitors. An analysis of the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics found an increasing incidence of melanoma, but a drop in mortality since 2013. A study of melanoma outcomes in Hungary also found increased incidence, while mortality declined by 16.55% between 2011 and 2019 (P =.013).

“These new drugs, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies, are effective treatments in the clinical trial data, so the magnitude of drop seen in population mortality was not surprising but very exciting,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The findings are encouraging, but prevention remains the most important strategy. “The utility of sun-protective strategies and policies should be encouraged,” she added.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has poor efficacy against metastatic melanoma, but novel therapies such as checkpoint inhibitors increased expected survival from months to years. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world population is deriving the same benefit,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The researchers found that the annual percentage change (APC) melanoma mortality rate (MMR) was +1.65% between 1975 and 1988 (P < .01). The APC was 0.01% between 1988 and 2013, which was not statistically significant (P = .85). Between 2013 and 2017, APC was –6.24% (P < .01), and it was –1.56% between 2017 and 2019 (P = .53).

The increase in melanoma mortality between 1975 and 1988 may be due to changes in the way that SEER data was collected. “It is possible that this increase was at least in part due to better capturing of the data. There may also be a contribution of increased mortality due to increased incidence of diagnoses related to increased UV exposure. From the 1920s, increased sun exposure and bronzed skin became fashionable. In the 1940s-1960s, tanning oils and lotions became more popular, and there may have been an increase in UV exposure during that time, which later led to an increase in diagnosis and, without effective therapies, mortality. Further, the use of indoor tanning beds from the 1970s onward may have contributed to increased UV exposure, incidence, and mortality,” she said.

On the other hand, the researchers noted a slowing of mortality reduction between 2017 and 2019. This was not a surprise, Dr. Kahlon said, since by that time most novel therapies were being introduced in the adjuvant setting. “The mortality benefit, if any, from adjuvant treatments is seen over a longer period and may not yet be captured in SEER data. Even the clinical trial data for most of these treatments have not shown an overall survival advantage and require more time for the data to mature. It will be interesting to see how these trends change in the near future,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature. Dr. Kahlon has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Mortality rates from melanoma have fallen in recent years, likely due to the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors, according to a new analysis of the National Cancer Institute SEER database between 1975 and 2019.

“This is very encouraging data and represents the real-world effectiveness of these therapies. The cost of these therapies can be prohibitive for universal treatment access, so the ways to address the accessibility of these treatments and the health care costs need to be supported,” said lead author Navkirat Kaur Kahlon MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio). The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

According to the American Cancer Society, the 5-year mortality for regional melanoma metastasis is 68%, and 30% for distant metastasis. However, these numbers may underestimate current survival. “People now being diagnosed with melanoma may have a better outlook than these numbers show. Treatments have improved over time, and these numbers are based on people who were diagnosed and treated at least 5 years earlier,” the American Cancer Society wrote.

Other studies have found similar trends. According to Cancer Research UK, 5-year melanoma skin cancer survival approximately doubled, from 46% to 90%, between 1971 and 2010. And, 1-year survival increased from 74% to 96%, but these improvements predated immune checkpoint inhibitors. An analysis of the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics found an increasing incidence of melanoma, but a drop in mortality since 2013. A study of melanoma outcomes in Hungary also found increased incidence, while mortality declined by 16.55% between 2011 and 2019 (P =.013).

“These new drugs, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies, are effective treatments in the clinical trial data, so the magnitude of drop seen in population mortality was not surprising but very exciting,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The findings are encouraging, but prevention remains the most important strategy. “The utility of sun-protective strategies and policies should be encouraged,” she added.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has poor efficacy against metastatic melanoma, but novel therapies such as checkpoint inhibitors increased expected survival from months to years. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world population is deriving the same benefit,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The researchers found that the annual percentage change (APC) melanoma mortality rate (MMR) was +1.65% between 1975 and 1988 (P < .01). The APC was 0.01% between 1988 and 2013, which was not statistically significant (P = .85). Between 2013 and 2017, APC was –6.24% (P < .01), and it was –1.56% between 2017 and 2019 (P = .53).

The increase in melanoma mortality between 1975 and 1988 may be due to changes in the way that SEER data was collected. “It is possible that this increase was at least in part due to better capturing of the data. There may also be a contribution of increased mortality due to increased incidence of diagnoses related to increased UV exposure. From the 1920s, increased sun exposure and bronzed skin became fashionable. In the 1940s-1960s, tanning oils and lotions became more popular, and there may have been an increase in UV exposure during that time, which later led to an increase in diagnosis and, without effective therapies, mortality. Further, the use of indoor tanning beds from the 1970s onward may have contributed to increased UV exposure, incidence, and mortality,” she said.

On the other hand, the researchers noted a slowing of mortality reduction between 2017 and 2019. This was not a surprise, Dr. Kahlon said, since by that time most novel therapies were being introduced in the adjuvant setting. “The mortality benefit, if any, from adjuvant treatments is seen over a longer period and may not yet be captured in SEER data. Even the clinical trial data for most of these treatments have not shown an overall survival advantage and require more time for the data to mature. It will be interesting to see how these trends change in the near future,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature. Dr. Kahlon has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Mortality rates from melanoma have fallen in recent years, likely due to the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors, according to a new analysis of the National Cancer Institute SEER database between 1975 and 2019.

“This is very encouraging data and represents the real-world effectiveness of these therapies. The cost of these therapies can be prohibitive for universal treatment access, so the ways to address the accessibility of these treatments and the health care costs need to be supported,” said lead author Navkirat Kaur Kahlon MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio). The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

According to the American Cancer Society, the 5-year mortality for regional melanoma metastasis is 68%, and 30% for distant metastasis. However, these numbers may underestimate current survival. “People now being diagnosed with melanoma may have a better outlook than these numbers show. Treatments have improved over time, and these numbers are based on people who were diagnosed and treated at least 5 years earlier,” the American Cancer Society wrote.

Other studies have found similar trends. According to Cancer Research UK, 5-year melanoma skin cancer survival approximately doubled, from 46% to 90%, between 1971 and 2010. And, 1-year survival increased from 74% to 96%, but these improvements predated immune checkpoint inhibitors. An analysis of the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics found an increasing incidence of melanoma, but a drop in mortality since 2013. A study of melanoma outcomes in Hungary also found increased incidence, while mortality declined by 16.55% between 2011 and 2019 (P =.013).

“These new drugs, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies, are effective treatments in the clinical trial data, so the magnitude of drop seen in population mortality was not surprising but very exciting,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The findings are encouraging, but prevention remains the most important strategy. “The utility of sun-protective strategies and policies should be encouraged,” she added.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has poor efficacy against metastatic melanoma, but novel therapies such as checkpoint inhibitors increased expected survival from months to years. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world population is deriving the same benefit,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The researchers found that the annual percentage change (APC) melanoma mortality rate (MMR) was +1.65% between 1975 and 1988 (P < .01). The APC was 0.01% between 1988 and 2013, which was not statistically significant (P = .85). Between 2013 and 2017, APC was –6.24% (P < .01), and it was –1.56% between 2017 and 2019 (P = .53).

The increase in melanoma mortality between 1975 and 1988 may be due to changes in the way that SEER data was collected. “It is possible that this increase was at least in part due to better capturing of the data. There may also be a contribution of increased mortality due to increased incidence of diagnoses related to increased UV exposure. From the 1920s, increased sun exposure and bronzed skin became fashionable. In the 1940s-1960s, tanning oils and lotions became more popular, and there may have been an increase in UV exposure during that time, which later led to an increase in diagnosis and, without effective therapies, mortality. Further, the use of indoor tanning beds from the 1970s onward may have contributed to increased UV exposure, incidence, and mortality,” she said.

On the other hand, the researchers noted a slowing of mortality reduction between 2017 and 2019. This was not a surprise, Dr. Kahlon said, since by that time most novel therapies were being introduced in the adjuvant setting. “The mortality benefit, if any, from adjuvant treatments is seen over a longer period and may not yet be captured in SEER data. Even the clinical trial data for most of these treatments have not shown an overall survival advantage and require more time for the data to mature. It will be interesting to see how these trends change in the near future,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature. Dr. Kahlon has no relevant financial disclosures.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.