TBD Meeting (3035-23)

Smokers with extreme phenotypes of high and low risk of developing tobacco-associated lung cancer have different genetic profiles, according to a multidisciplinary study conducted by specialists from the Cancer Center at the University of Navarra Clinic (CUN). The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. 

Ana Patiño García, PhD, director of the genomic medicine unit at the CUN and a coordinator of the research, explained in an interview the main reason why this study was conducted. “This study came straight out of the oncology clinic, where we are constantly encountering patients with lung cancer who have never smoked or who have smoked very little, while we also all know people who have smoked a lot throughout their lifetime and have never developed cancer. This observation has led us to ask whether there are genetic factors that increase or decrease the risk of cancer and protect people against this disease.”

José Luis Pérez Gracia, MD, PhD, oncologist, coordinator of the oncology trials department at the CUN and another of the individuals responsible for this research, said: “This is the first study to validate genetic factors associated with people who appear to be resistant to developing tobacco-related lung cancer or who, on the other hand, are at high risk of developing this disease.”
 

Pioneering approach 

Earlier evidence showed that some smokers develop cancer, and others don’t. “This is a very well-known fact, since everyone knows about some elderly person who has been a heavy smoker and has never developed lung cancer,” said Dr. Pérez. “Unfortunately, we oncologists encounter young smokers who have been diagnosed with this disease. However, despite the importance of understanding the causes behind these phenotypes, it is a question that has never been studied from a genetic standpoint.”

The study was conducted using DNA from 133 heavy smokers who had not developed lung cancer at a mean age of 80 years, and from another 116 heavy smokers who had developed this type of cancer at a mean age of 50 years. This DNA was sequenced using next-generation techniques, and the results were analyzed using bioinformatics and artificial intelligence systems in collaboration with the University of Navarra Applied Medical Research Center and the University of Navarra School of Engineering.

When asked how this methodology could be applied to support other research conducted along these lines, Dr. Patiño said, “The most novel thing about this research is actually its approach. It’s based on groups at the extremes, defined by the patient’s age at the time of developing lung cancer and how much they had smoked. This type of comparative design is called extreme phenotypes, and its main distinguishing characteristic – which is also its most limiting characteristic – is choosing cases and controls well. Obviously, with today’s next-generation sequencing technologies, we achieve a quantity and quality of data that would have been unattainable in years gone by.”

Speaking to the role played by bioinformatics and artificial intelligence in this research, Dr. Patiño explained that they are fairly new techniques. “In fact, these technologies could be thought of as spearheading a lot of the biomedical research being done today. They’ve also somewhat set the stage for the paradigm shift where the investigator asks the data a question, and in the case of artificial intelligence, it’s the data that answer.”
 

Pinpointing genetic differences

In his analysis of the most noteworthy data and conclusions from this research, Dr. Pérez noted, “The most significant thing we’ve seen is that both populations have genetic differences. This suggests that our hypothesis is correct. Of course, more studies including a larger number of individuals will be needed to confirm these findings. For the first time, our work has laid the foundation for developing this line of research.” 

“Many genetic variants that we have identified as differentials in cases and controls are found in genes relevant to the immune system (HLA system), in genes related to functional pathways that are often altered in tumor development, and in structural proteins and in genes related to cell mobility,” emphasized Dr. Patiño.

Many of the genetic characteristics that were discovered are located in genes with functions related to cancer development, such as immune response, repair of genetic material, regulation of inflammation, etc. This finding is highly significant, said Dr. Pérez. “However, we must remember that these phenotypes may be attributable to multiple causes, not just one cause.”

Furthermore, the specialist explained the next steps to be taken in the context of the line opened up by this research. “First, we must expand these studies, including more individuals with, if possible, even more extreme phenotypes: more smokers who are older and younger, respectively. Once the statistical evidence is stronger, we must also confirm that the alterations observed in lab-based studies truly impact gene function.”
 

Earlier diagnosis 

The clinician also discussed the potential ways that the conclusions of this study could be applied to clinical practice now and in the future, and how the conclusions could benefit these patients. “The results of our line of research may help in early identification of those individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer if they smoke, so that they could be included in prevention programs to keep them from smoking or to help them stop smoking,” said Dr. Pérez. “It would also allow for early diagnosis of cancer at a time when there is a much higher chance of curing it. 

“However, the most important thing is that our study may allow us to better understand the mechanisms by which cancer arises and especially why some people do not develop it. This [understanding] could lead to new diagnostic techniques and new treatments for this disease. The techniques needed to develop this line of research (bioinformatic mass sequencing and artificial intelligence) are available and becoming more reliable and more accessible every day. So, we believe our strategy is very realistic,” he added.

Although the line of research opened up by this study depicts a new scenario, the specialists still must face several challenges to discover why some smokers are more likely than others to develop lung cancer.

“There are many lines of research in this regard,” said Dr. Pérez. “But to name a few, I would draw attention to the need to increase the number of cases and controls to improve the comparison, study patients with other tumors related to tobacco use, ask new questions using the data we have already collected, and apply other genomic techniques that would allow us to perform additional studies of genetic variants that have not yet been studied. And, of course, we need to use functional studies to expand our understanding of the function and activity of the genes that have already been identified.” 

Dr. Patiño and Dr. Pérez declared that they have no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Smokers with extreme phenotypes of high and low risk of developing tobacco-associated lung cancer have different genetic profiles, according to a multidisciplinary study conducted by specialists from the Cancer Center at the University of Navarra Clinic (CUN). The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. 

Ana Patiño García, PhD, director of the genomic medicine unit at the CUN and a coordinator of the research, explained in an interview the main reason why this study was conducted. “This study came straight out of the oncology clinic, where we are constantly encountering patients with lung cancer who have never smoked or who have smoked very little, while we also all know people who have smoked a lot throughout their lifetime and have never developed cancer. This observation has led us to ask whether there are genetic factors that increase or decrease the risk of cancer and protect people against this disease.”

José Luis Pérez Gracia, MD, PhD, oncologist, coordinator of the oncology trials department at the CUN and another of the individuals responsible for this research, said: “This is the first study to validate genetic factors associated with people who appear to be resistant to developing tobacco-related lung cancer or who, on the other hand, are at high risk of developing this disease.”
 

Pioneering approach 

Earlier evidence showed that some smokers develop cancer, and others don’t. “This is a very well-known fact, since everyone knows about some elderly person who has been a heavy smoker and has never developed lung cancer,” said Dr. Pérez. “Unfortunately, we oncologists encounter young smokers who have been diagnosed with this disease. However, despite the importance of understanding the causes behind these phenotypes, it is a question that has never been studied from a genetic standpoint.”

The study was conducted using DNA from 133 heavy smokers who had not developed lung cancer at a mean age of 80 years, and from another 116 heavy smokers who had developed this type of cancer at a mean age of 50 years. This DNA was sequenced using next-generation techniques, and the results were analyzed using bioinformatics and artificial intelligence systems in collaboration with the University of Navarra Applied Medical Research Center and the University of Navarra School of Engineering.

When asked how this methodology could be applied to support other research conducted along these lines, Dr. Patiño said, “The most novel thing about this research is actually its approach. It’s based on groups at the extremes, defined by the patient’s age at the time of developing lung cancer and how much they had smoked. This type of comparative design is called extreme phenotypes, and its main distinguishing characteristic – which is also its most limiting characteristic – is choosing cases and controls well. Obviously, with today’s next-generation sequencing technologies, we achieve a quantity and quality of data that would have been unattainable in years gone by.”

Speaking to the role played by bioinformatics and artificial intelligence in this research, Dr. Patiño explained that they are fairly new techniques. “In fact, these technologies could be thought of as spearheading a lot of the biomedical research being done today. They’ve also somewhat set the stage for the paradigm shift where the investigator asks the data a question, and in the case of artificial intelligence, it’s the data that answer.”
 

Pinpointing genetic differences

In his analysis of the most noteworthy data and conclusions from this research, Dr. Pérez noted, “The most significant thing we’ve seen is that both populations have genetic differences. This suggests that our hypothesis is correct. Of course, more studies including a larger number of individuals will be needed to confirm these findings. For the first time, our work has laid the foundation for developing this line of research.” 

“Many genetic variants that we have identified as differentials in cases and controls are found in genes relevant to the immune system (HLA system), in genes related to functional pathways that are often altered in tumor development, and in structural proteins and in genes related to cell mobility,” emphasized Dr. Patiño.

Many of the genetic characteristics that were discovered are located in genes with functions related to cancer development, such as immune response, repair of genetic material, regulation of inflammation, etc. This finding is highly significant, said Dr. Pérez. “However, we must remember that these phenotypes may be attributable to multiple causes, not just one cause.”

Furthermore, the specialist explained the next steps to be taken in the context of the line opened up by this research. “First, we must expand these studies, including more individuals with, if possible, even more extreme phenotypes: more smokers who are older and younger, respectively. Once the statistical evidence is stronger, we must also confirm that the alterations observed in lab-based studies truly impact gene function.”
 

Earlier diagnosis 

The clinician also discussed the potential ways that the conclusions of this study could be applied to clinical practice now and in the future, and how the conclusions could benefit these patients. “The results of our line of research may help in early identification of those individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer if they smoke, so that they could be included in prevention programs to keep them from smoking or to help them stop smoking,” said Dr. Pérez. “It would also allow for early diagnosis of cancer at a time when there is a much higher chance of curing it. 

“However, the most important thing is that our study may allow us to better understand the mechanisms by which cancer arises and especially why some people do not develop it. This [understanding] could lead to new diagnostic techniques and new treatments for this disease. The techniques needed to develop this line of research (bioinformatic mass sequencing and artificial intelligence) are available and becoming more reliable and more accessible every day. So, we believe our strategy is very realistic,” he added.

Although the line of research opened up by this study depicts a new scenario, the specialists still must face several challenges to discover why some smokers are more likely than others to develop lung cancer.

“There are many lines of research in this regard,” said Dr. Pérez. “But to name a few, I would draw attention to the need to increase the number of cases and controls to improve the comparison, study patients with other tumors related to tobacco use, ask new questions using the data we have already collected, and apply other genomic techniques that would allow us to perform additional studies of genetic variants that have not yet been studied. And, of course, we need to use functional studies to expand our understanding of the function and activity of the genes that have already been identified.” 

Dr. Patiño and Dr. Pérez declared that they have no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Smokers with extreme phenotypes of high and low risk of developing tobacco-associated lung cancer have different genetic profiles, according to a multidisciplinary study conducted by specialists from the Cancer Center at the University of Navarra Clinic (CUN). The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. 

Ana Patiño García, PhD, director of the genomic medicine unit at the CUN and a coordinator of the research, explained in an interview the main reason why this study was conducted. “This study came straight out of the oncology clinic, where we are constantly encountering patients with lung cancer who have never smoked or who have smoked very little, while we also all know people who have smoked a lot throughout their lifetime and have never developed cancer. This observation has led us to ask whether there are genetic factors that increase or decrease the risk of cancer and protect people against this disease.”

José Luis Pérez Gracia, MD, PhD, oncologist, coordinator of the oncology trials department at the CUN and another of the individuals responsible for this research, said: “This is the first study to validate genetic factors associated with people who appear to be resistant to developing tobacco-related lung cancer or who, on the other hand, are at high risk of developing this disease.”
 

Pioneering approach 

Earlier evidence showed that some smokers develop cancer, and others don’t. “This is a very well-known fact, since everyone knows about some elderly person who has been a heavy smoker and has never developed lung cancer,” said Dr. Pérez. “Unfortunately, we oncologists encounter young smokers who have been diagnosed with this disease. However, despite the importance of understanding the causes behind these phenotypes, it is a question that has never been studied from a genetic standpoint.”

The study was conducted using DNA from 133 heavy smokers who had not developed lung cancer at a mean age of 80 years, and from another 116 heavy smokers who had developed this type of cancer at a mean age of 50 years. This DNA was sequenced using next-generation techniques, and the results were analyzed using bioinformatics and artificial intelligence systems in collaboration with the University of Navarra Applied Medical Research Center and the University of Navarra School of Engineering.

When asked how this methodology could be applied to support other research conducted along these lines, Dr. Patiño said, “The most novel thing about this research is actually its approach. It’s based on groups at the extremes, defined by the patient’s age at the time of developing lung cancer and how much they had smoked. This type of comparative design is called extreme phenotypes, and its main distinguishing characteristic – which is also its most limiting characteristic – is choosing cases and controls well. Obviously, with today’s next-generation sequencing technologies, we achieve a quantity and quality of data that would have been unattainable in years gone by.”

Speaking to the role played by bioinformatics and artificial intelligence in this research, Dr. Patiño explained that they are fairly new techniques. “In fact, these technologies could be thought of as spearheading a lot of the biomedical research being done today. They’ve also somewhat set the stage for the paradigm shift where the investigator asks the data a question, and in the case of artificial intelligence, it’s the data that answer.”
 

Pinpointing genetic differences

In his analysis of the most noteworthy data and conclusions from this research, Dr. Pérez noted, “The most significant thing we’ve seen is that both populations have genetic differences. This suggests that our hypothesis is correct. Of course, more studies including a larger number of individuals will be needed to confirm these findings. For the first time, our work has laid the foundation for developing this line of research.” 

“Many genetic variants that we have identified as differentials in cases and controls are found in genes relevant to the immune system (HLA system), in genes related to functional pathways that are often altered in tumor development, and in structural proteins and in genes related to cell mobility,” emphasized Dr. Patiño.

Many of the genetic characteristics that were discovered are located in genes with functions related to cancer development, such as immune response, repair of genetic material, regulation of inflammation, etc. This finding is highly significant, said Dr. Pérez. “However, we must remember that these phenotypes may be attributable to multiple causes, not just one cause.”

Furthermore, the specialist explained the next steps to be taken in the context of the line opened up by this research. “First, we must expand these studies, including more individuals with, if possible, even more extreme phenotypes: more smokers who are older and younger, respectively. Once the statistical evidence is stronger, we must also confirm that the alterations observed in lab-based studies truly impact gene function.”
 

Earlier diagnosis 

The clinician also discussed the potential ways that the conclusions of this study could be applied to clinical practice now and in the future, and how the conclusions could benefit these patients. “The results of our line of research may help in early identification of those individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer if they smoke, so that they could be included in prevention programs to keep them from smoking or to help them stop smoking,” said Dr. Pérez. “It would also allow for early diagnosis of cancer at a time when there is a much higher chance of curing it. 

“However, the most important thing is that our study may allow us to better understand the mechanisms by which cancer arises and especially why some people do not develop it. This [understanding] could lead to new diagnostic techniques and new treatments for this disease. The techniques needed to develop this line of research (bioinformatic mass sequencing and artificial intelligence) are available and becoming more reliable and more accessible every day. So, we believe our strategy is very realistic,” he added.

Although the line of research opened up by this study depicts a new scenario, the specialists still must face several challenges to discover why some smokers are more likely than others to develop lung cancer.

“There are many lines of research in this regard,” said Dr. Pérez. “But to name a few, I would draw attention to the need to increase the number of cases and controls to improve the comparison, study patients with other tumors related to tobacco use, ask new questions using the data we have already collected, and apply other genomic techniques that would allow us to perform additional studies of genetic variants that have not yet been studied. And, of course, we need to use functional studies to expand our understanding of the function and activity of the genes that have already been identified.” 

Dr. Patiño and Dr. Pérez declared that they have no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) (Enhertu) already has proven efficacy against HER2-expressing metastatic breast, gastroesophageal, and lung cancers.

Now, preliminary data from an ongoing study indicate that T-DXd, which combines an antibody targeted to HER2 with a toxic payload, could be an effective therapy for a broader range of advanced solid tumors that express HER2, including malignancies of the cervix, endometrium, ovaries, bladder, and other sites.

The findings come from the ongoing DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial. Among 267 patients with solid tumors at various organ sites, the investigator-assessed objective response rate among all patients was 37.1%, and ranged from as high as 57.5% for patients with endometrial cancers to as low as 4% for patients with pancreatic cancer, reported Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

For patients with tumors that had HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) scores of 3+, the highest level of HER2 expression, the overall response rate was 61.3%..

The responses were also durable, with a median duration of 11.8 months among all patients and 22.1 months among patients with IHC 3+ scores.

“Our data to date showed that T-DXd had clinically meaningful activity across a variety of tumor types,” she said in a briefing held prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“HER2 expression has been around a long time. We think about this all the time in breast cancer and drugs are approved there, but HER2 is expressed in other tumors as well, and that really represents an unmet need, because we have limited options in this situation” commented ASCO expert Bradley Alexander McGregor, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, an invited discussant at the briefing.

“Aside from pancreatic cancer we saw really, really encouraging results with no new safety signals, so while early I think this really exciting and represents a shift in how we think about cancer care,” he added.

After the presentation, invited discussant Kohei Shitara, MD, of National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said that he agrees with authors that T-DXd is a potential new treatment option for patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors, and that the evidence suggests the potential for further tumor-agnostic development of the agent.

He cautioned, however, that there is a lack of concordance between local and central assessment of HER2 IHC, and that quality assurance will be required to ensure that the HER2 status of solid tumors is accurately characterized.

At a press briefing, Dr. Meric-Bernstam was asked how she envisioned using T-DXd in therapy for various HER2-expressing tumors.

“I think the activity we’ve seen is quite compelling, and one hopes that eventually this will be a drug that’s accessible for patients that are HER2-expressing across tumor types. Clearly, the activity is very compelling in some of the diseases to think about doing studies for earlier lines,” she said.

“The data indicate that there is tumor-agnostic activity across the board,” she said, but noted that tumors with epithelial components such as ovarian and breast cancers appear to have the highest responses to T-DXd therapy.

Briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, asked Dr. McGregor whether, in the light of this new data, oncologists should test more patients for HER2 expression.

“We have some cancers where we know HER2 expression is there. I think the good thing about HER2 testing is that it’s an IHC test, so this is something that can be easily done in local pathology [labs],” he said. As more evidence mounts of potential benefit of T-DXd in HER2 expressing tumors, clinicians will need to consider more routine HER2 testing.
 

A rendezvous with DESTINY

The DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial is a phase 2, open-label, multicenter study looking at T-DXd in patients with advanced solid tumors who are not eligible for therapy with curative intent.

All patients had disease progression after at least two prior lines of therapy, and had tumors with HER2 expression of IHC 3+ or 2+ either by local or central testing. Patients were allowed to have previously received HER2-targeting therapy. Patients also had to have good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization performance status 0 or 1).

The investigators planned to enroll 40 patients in each cohort, including patients with cervical, endometrial, ovarian, biliary tract, pancreatic, or bladder cancers, as well those with other tumors expressing HER2 who were not included in the other cohorts.

Under the protocol, cohorts in which none of the first 15 patients had objective responses would be closed, as happened with the pancreatic cancer cohort.

At a median follow-up of 9.7 months, an objective response was seen in 99 patients out of the 267 in the entire study population (ORR, 37.1%). This ORR consisted of 15 complete responses and 84 partial responses. An additional 123 patients had stable disease.

An analysis of ORR by HER2 expression showed that IHC 3+ expressing tumors had rates ranging from 84.6% in endometrial cancers, 75% in cervical cancer, 63.6% in ovarian cancers, and 56.3% in bladder cancers, down to zero in IHC 3+ expressing pancreatic cancer. 

The T-DXd safety profile was consistent with that seen in other clinical trials, with most common adverse events being nausea, fatigue, neutropenia, anemia, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. There were 20 cases of interstitial lung disease, one of which was fatal.

The trial is ongoing, and investigators plan to report overall survival and progression-free survival results with additional follow-up.

DESTINY-PanTumor02 is funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Meric-Bernstam disclosed a consulting/advisory role with multiple pharmaceutical companies, research funding to her institution from Daiichi Sankyo and others, and travel expenses from ESMO and EORTC. Dr. McGregor disclosed a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with multiple companies, not including the study’s funder. Dr. Gralow disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

CHICAGO – Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) (Enhertu) already has proven efficacy against HER2-expressing metastatic breast, gastroesophageal, and lung cancers.

Now, preliminary data from an ongoing study indicate that T-DXd, which combines an antibody targeted to HER2 with a toxic payload, could be an effective therapy for a broader range of advanced solid tumors that express HER2, including malignancies of the cervix, endometrium, ovaries, bladder, and other sites.

The findings come from the ongoing DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial. Among 267 patients with solid tumors at various organ sites, the investigator-assessed objective response rate among all patients was 37.1%, and ranged from as high as 57.5% for patients with endometrial cancers to as low as 4% for patients with pancreatic cancer, reported Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

For patients with tumors that had HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) scores of 3+, the highest level of HER2 expression, the overall response rate was 61.3%..

The responses were also durable, with a median duration of 11.8 months among all patients and 22.1 months among patients with IHC 3+ scores.

“Our data to date showed that T-DXd had clinically meaningful activity across a variety of tumor types,” she said in a briefing held prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“HER2 expression has been around a long time. We think about this all the time in breast cancer and drugs are approved there, but HER2 is expressed in other tumors as well, and that really represents an unmet need, because we have limited options in this situation” commented ASCO expert Bradley Alexander McGregor, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, an invited discussant at the briefing.

“Aside from pancreatic cancer we saw really, really encouraging results with no new safety signals, so while early I think this really exciting and represents a shift in how we think about cancer care,” he added.

After the presentation, invited discussant Kohei Shitara, MD, of National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said that he agrees with authors that T-DXd is a potential new treatment option for patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors, and that the evidence suggests the potential for further tumor-agnostic development of the agent.

He cautioned, however, that there is a lack of concordance between local and central assessment of HER2 IHC, and that quality assurance will be required to ensure that the HER2 status of solid tumors is accurately characterized.

At a press briefing, Dr. Meric-Bernstam was asked how she envisioned using T-DXd in therapy for various HER2-expressing tumors.

“I think the activity we’ve seen is quite compelling, and one hopes that eventually this will be a drug that’s accessible for patients that are HER2-expressing across tumor types. Clearly, the activity is very compelling in some of the diseases to think about doing studies for earlier lines,” she said.

“The data indicate that there is tumor-agnostic activity across the board,” she said, but noted that tumors with epithelial components such as ovarian and breast cancers appear to have the highest responses to T-DXd therapy.

Briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, asked Dr. McGregor whether, in the light of this new data, oncologists should test more patients for HER2 expression.

“We have some cancers where we know HER2 expression is there. I think the good thing about HER2 testing is that it’s an IHC test, so this is something that can be easily done in local pathology [labs],” he said. As more evidence mounts of potential benefit of T-DXd in HER2 expressing tumors, clinicians will need to consider more routine HER2 testing.
 

A rendezvous with DESTINY

The DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial is a phase 2, open-label, multicenter study looking at T-DXd in patients with advanced solid tumors who are not eligible for therapy with curative intent.

All patients had disease progression after at least two prior lines of therapy, and had tumors with HER2 expression of IHC 3+ or 2+ either by local or central testing. Patients were allowed to have previously received HER2-targeting therapy. Patients also had to have good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization performance status 0 or 1).

The investigators planned to enroll 40 patients in each cohort, including patients with cervical, endometrial, ovarian, biliary tract, pancreatic, or bladder cancers, as well those with other tumors expressing HER2 who were not included in the other cohorts.

Under the protocol, cohorts in which none of the first 15 patients had objective responses would be closed, as happened with the pancreatic cancer cohort.

At a median follow-up of 9.7 months, an objective response was seen in 99 patients out of the 267 in the entire study population (ORR, 37.1%). This ORR consisted of 15 complete responses and 84 partial responses. An additional 123 patients had stable disease.

An analysis of ORR by HER2 expression showed that IHC 3+ expressing tumors had rates ranging from 84.6% in endometrial cancers, 75% in cervical cancer, 63.6% in ovarian cancers, and 56.3% in bladder cancers, down to zero in IHC 3+ expressing pancreatic cancer. 

The T-DXd safety profile was consistent with that seen in other clinical trials, with most common adverse events being nausea, fatigue, neutropenia, anemia, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. There were 20 cases of interstitial lung disease, one of which was fatal.

The trial is ongoing, and investigators plan to report overall survival and progression-free survival results with additional follow-up.

DESTINY-PanTumor02 is funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Meric-Bernstam disclosed a consulting/advisory role with multiple pharmaceutical companies, research funding to her institution from Daiichi Sankyo and others, and travel expenses from ESMO and EORTC. Dr. McGregor disclosed a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with multiple companies, not including the study’s funder. Dr. Gralow disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

CHICAGO – Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) (Enhertu) already has proven efficacy against HER2-expressing metastatic breast, gastroesophageal, and lung cancers.

Now, preliminary data from an ongoing study indicate that T-DXd, which combines an antibody targeted to HER2 with a toxic payload, could be an effective therapy for a broader range of advanced solid tumors that express HER2, including malignancies of the cervix, endometrium, ovaries, bladder, and other sites.

The findings come from the ongoing DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial. Among 267 patients with solid tumors at various organ sites, the investigator-assessed objective response rate among all patients was 37.1%, and ranged from as high as 57.5% for patients with endometrial cancers to as low as 4% for patients with pancreatic cancer, reported Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

For patients with tumors that had HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) scores of 3+, the highest level of HER2 expression, the overall response rate was 61.3%..

The responses were also durable, with a median duration of 11.8 months among all patients and 22.1 months among patients with IHC 3+ scores.

“Our data to date showed that T-DXd had clinically meaningful activity across a variety of tumor types,” she said in a briefing held prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“HER2 expression has been around a long time. We think about this all the time in breast cancer and drugs are approved there, but HER2 is expressed in other tumors as well, and that really represents an unmet need, because we have limited options in this situation” commented ASCO expert Bradley Alexander McGregor, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, an invited discussant at the briefing.

“Aside from pancreatic cancer we saw really, really encouraging results with no new safety signals, so while early I think this really exciting and represents a shift in how we think about cancer care,” he added.

After the presentation, invited discussant Kohei Shitara, MD, of National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said that he agrees with authors that T-DXd is a potential new treatment option for patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors, and that the evidence suggests the potential for further tumor-agnostic development of the agent.

He cautioned, however, that there is a lack of concordance between local and central assessment of HER2 IHC, and that quality assurance will be required to ensure that the HER2 status of solid tumors is accurately characterized.

At a press briefing, Dr. Meric-Bernstam was asked how she envisioned using T-DXd in therapy for various HER2-expressing tumors.

“I think the activity we’ve seen is quite compelling, and one hopes that eventually this will be a drug that’s accessible for patients that are HER2-expressing across tumor types. Clearly, the activity is very compelling in some of the diseases to think about doing studies for earlier lines,” she said.

“The data indicate that there is tumor-agnostic activity across the board,” she said, but noted that tumors with epithelial components such as ovarian and breast cancers appear to have the highest responses to T-DXd therapy.

Briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, asked Dr. McGregor whether, in the light of this new data, oncologists should test more patients for HER2 expression.

“We have some cancers where we know HER2 expression is there. I think the good thing about HER2 testing is that it’s an IHC test, so this is something that can be easily done in local pathology [labs],” he said. As more evidence mounts of potential benefit of T-DXd in HER2 expressing tumors, clinicians will need to consider more routine HER2 testing.
 

A rendezvous with DESTINY

The DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial is a phase 2, open-label, multicenter study looking at T-DXd in patients with advanced solid tumors who are not eligible for therapy with curative intent.

All patients had disease progression after at least two prior lines of therapy, and had tumors with HER2 expression of IHC 3+ or 2+ either by local or central testing. Patients were allowed to have previously received HER2-targeting therapy. Patients also had to have good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization performance status 0 or 1).

The investigators planned to enroll 40 patients in each cohort, including patients with cervical, endometrial, ovarian, biliary tract, pancreatic, or bladder cancers, as well those with other tumors expressing HER2 who were not included in the other cohorts.

Under the protocol, cohorts in which none of the first 15 patients had objective responses would be closed, as happened with the pancreatic cancer cohort.

At a median follow-up of 9.7 months, an objective response was seen in 99 patients out of the 267 in the entire study population (ORR, 37.1%). This ORR consisted of 15 complete responses and 84 partial responses. An additional 123 patients had stable disease.

An analysis of ORR by HER2 expression showed that IHC 3+ expressing tumors had rates ranging from 84.6% in endometrial cancers, 75% in cervical cancer, 63.6% in ovarian cancers, and 56.3% in bladder cancers, down to zero in IHC 3+ expressing pancreatic cancer. 

The T-DXd safety profile was consistent with that seen in other clinical trials, with most common adverse events being nausea, fatigue, neutropenia, anemia, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. There were 20 cases of interstitial lung disease, one of which was fatal.

The trial is ongoing, and investigators plan to report overall survival and progression-free survival results with additional follow-up.

DESTINY-PanTumor02 is funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Meric-Bernstam disclosed a consulting/advisory role with multiple pharmaceutical companies, research funding to her institution from Daiichi Sankyo and others, and travel expenses from ESMO and EORTC. Dr. McGregor disclosed a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with multiple companies, not including the study’s funder. Dr. Gralow disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide (Revlimid) is a vital component of early therapy and maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients in first relapse who have disease that is refractory to lenalidomide have few good options for subsequent lines of therapy and a generally poor prognosis.

New results show that such patients benefit from treatment with the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) (Carvykti).

The finding comes from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial, which was reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who received a single infusion of ciltacabtagene autoleucel demonstrated a 74% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with patients who received the standard of care.

The hazard ratio for death or progression with cilta-cel was 0.26 (P < .001), which “is the best hazard ratio ever reported in this patient population in a randomized clinical setting,” said principal investigator Binod Dhakal, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Dr. Dhakal reported data from the first analysis of the trial. At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached among 208 patients who received cilta-cel; PFS was 11.8 months for the 211 patients assigned to receive standard of care, which consisted of the physician’s choice of either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd).

Twelve-month PFS rates were 75.9% and 48.6%, respectively, and both the overall response rate (ORR) and the complete response (CR) rate were higher with the CAR T construct than with the standard of care (ORR, 84.6% vs. 67.3%; CR rates, 73.1% and 21.8%, respectively).

“My perspective on Dr. Dakhal and colleague’s data is that myeloma treatment should be revisited in the light of this,” commented invited discussant Asher Chanan-Khan, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla.

“Early CAR Ts demonstrating efficacy and safety and prior lines of treatment impact survival from CAR T in myeloma. In lymphoma, CAR T is almost replacing, if not already, autotransplant. Can this also be true for multiple myeloma?” he asked.

Dr. Chanan-Khan noted that there are at least four ongoing trials with CAR T targeting either the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) alone or in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Also commenting on the new results, ASCO Expert Oreofe Odejide, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a statement: “Lenalidomide has become a foundation of care for people with myeloma, but as its use has expanded, so has the number of patients whose disease will no longer respond to the treatment. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel has not only shown that it delivers remarkably effective outcomes, compared with patients’ current options, but also that it can be used safely earlier in the treatment phase.”
 

Already approved for refractory myeloma

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T that contains two single-domain antibodies that target BCMA. This target was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

The product is already approved for use in myeloma; it was approved in March 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies. That approval was based on results from phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 trial, which, as previously reported by this news organization, showed that early and deep responses with cilta-cel proved to be durable.

Final results of CARTITUDE-1, reported in a scientific poster at ASCO 2023, showed that almost half of patients (47.5%) who were treated with cilta-cel were free of disease progression at 3 years, and 59.8% had sustained, complete responses. In addition, the median PFS was longer than for any previously reported therapy for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the authors said.
 

CARTITUDE-4 details

For the CARTITUDE-4 trial, the investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who had experienced relapse after one to three prior lines of therapy that included a prosteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator. After stratification by the choice of PVd or DPd, Multiple Myeloma International Staging System, and number of prior lines of therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either cilta-cel or one of the two standard-of-care regimens previously described.

Patients assigned to cilta-cel received one or more cycles of either PVd or DPd as bridging therapy during the period from apheresis to infusion of the CAR T cells.

As already noted, cilta-cel showed superior PFS and response rates and was associated with a significantly higher rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, compared with standard of care, in the intention-to-treat population: 60.6% vs. 15.6%, which translates into an odds ratio for achieving MRD negativity with CAR T of 8.7 (P < .0001). Among the subset of patients evaluable for MRD, the respective rates were 87.5% and 32.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of presentation. In all, 39 patients in the cilta-cel arm and 47 in the standard-of-care arm died during the study.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 97% of patients who received cilta-cel and in 94% of those who received standard-of-care therapies. In the cilta-cel arm, 76.1% of patients had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although only 1.1% of cases were of grade 3 or 4 in severity, and there were no CRS-associated deaths. Eight patients in this arm had immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, all of grade 1 or 2. One patient had grade 1 movement and neurocognitive symptoms, 16 had grade 2 or 3 cranial nerve palsy, and 5 patients had CAR T–related peripheral neuropathy of grade 1, 2, or 3.

The investigators plan to follow patients to determine the long-term effects of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and are currently performing analyses of health-related quality of life, subgroups, and biomarkers.

The study was funded by Janssen and Legend Biotech, which market ciltacabtagene autoleucel. Dr. Dhakal disclosed consulting, speaker’s bureau participation, and institutional research funding from Janssen and others. Several coauthors are employees of the study funders. Dr. Chanan-Khan’s relevant financial information was not available. Dr. Odejide reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide (Revlimid) is a vital component of early therapy and maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients in first relapse who have disease that is refractory to lenalidomide have few good options for subsequent lines of therapy and a generally poor prognosis.

New results show that such patients benefit from treatment with the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) (Carvykti).

The finding comes from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial, which was reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who received a single infusion of ciltacabtagene autoleucel demonstrated a 74% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with patients who received the standard of care.

The hazard ratio for death or progression with cilta-cel was 0.26 (P < .001), which “is the best hazard ratio ever reported in this patient population in a randomized clinical setting,” said principal investigator Binod Dhakal, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Dr. Dhakal reported data from the first analysis of the trial. At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached among 208 patients who received cilta-cel; PFS was 11.8 months for the 211 patients assigned to receive standard of care, which consisted of the physician’s choice of either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd).

Twelve-month PFS rates were 75.9% and 48.6%, respectively, and both the overall response rate (ORR) and the complete response (CR) rate were higher with the CAR T construct than with the standard of care (ORR, 84.6% vs. 67.3%; CR rates, 73.1% and 21.8%, respectively).

“My perspective on Dr. Dakhal and colleague’s data is that myeloma treatment should be revisited in the light of this,” commented invited discussant Asher Chanan-Khan, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla.

“Early CAR Ts demonstrating efficacy and safety and prior lines of treatment impact survival from CAR T in myeloma. In lymphoma, CAR T is almost replacing, if not already, autotransplant. Can this also be true for multiple myeloma?” he asked.

Dr. Chanan-Khan noted that there are at least four ongoing trials with CAR T targeting either the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) alone or in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Also commenting on the new results, ASCO Expert Oreofe Odejide, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a statement: “Lenalidomide has become a foundation of care for people with myeloma, but as its use has expanded, so has the number of patients whose disease will no longer respond to the treatment. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel has not only shown that it delivers remarkably effective outcomes, compared with patients’ current options, but also that it can be used safely earlier in the treatment phase.”
 

Already approved for refractory myeloma

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T that contains two single-domain antibodies that target BCMA. This target was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

The product is already approved for use in myeloma; it was approved in March 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies. That approval was based on results from phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 trial, which, as previously reported by this news organization, showed that early and deep responses with cilta-cel proved to be durable.

Final results of CARTITUDE-1, reported in a scientific poster at ASCO 2023, showed that almost half of patients (47.5%) who were treated with cilta-cel were free of disease progression at 3 years, and 59.8% had sustained, complete responses. In addition, the median PFS was longer than for any previously reported therapy for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the authors said.
 

CARTITUDE-4 details

For the CARTITUDE-4 trial, the investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who had experienced relapse after one to three prior lines of therapy that included a prosteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator. After stratification by the choice of PVd or DPd, Multiple Myeloma International Staging System, and number of prior lines of therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either cilta-cel or one of the two standard-of-care regimens previously described.

Patients assigned to cilta-cel received one or more cycles of either PVd or DPd as bridging therapy during the period from apheresis to infusion of the CAR T cells.

As already noted, cilta-cel showed superior PFS and response rates and was associated with a significantly higher rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, compared with standard of care, in the intention-to-treat population: 60.6% vs. 15.6%, which translates into an odds ratio for achieving MRD negativity with CAR T of 8.7 (P < .0001). Among the subset of patients evaluable for MRD, the respective rates were 87.5% and 32.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of presentation. In all, 39 patients in the cilta-cel arm and 47 in the standard-of-care arm died during the study.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 97% of patients who received cilta-cel and in 94% of those who received standard-of-care therapies. In the cilta-cel arm, 76.1% of patients had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although only 1.1% of cases were of grade 3 or 4 in severity, and there were no CRS-associated deaths. Eight patients in this arm had immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, all of grade 1 or 2. One patient had grade 1 movement and neurocognitive symptoms, 16 had grade 2 or 3 cranial nerve palsy, and 5 patients had CAR T–related peripheral neuropathy of grade 1, 2, or 3.

The investigators plan to follow patients to determine the long-term effects of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and are currently performing analyses of health-related quality of life, subgroups, and biomarkers.

The study was funded by Janssen and Legend Biotech, which market ciltacabtagene autoleucel. Dr. Dhakal disclosed consulting, speaker’s bureau participation, and institutional research funding from Janssen and others. Several coauthors are employees of the study funders. Dr. Chanan-Khan’s relevant financial information was not available. Dr. Odejide reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide (Revlimid) is a vital component of early therapy and maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients in first relapse who have disease that is refractory to lenalidomide have few good options for subsequent lines of therapy and a generally poor prognosis.

New results show that such patients benefit from treatment with the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) (Carvykti).

The finding comes from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial, which was reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who received a single infusion of ciltacabtagene autoleucel demonstrated a 74% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with patients who received the standard of care.

The hazard ratio for death or progression with cilta-cel was 0.26 (P < .001), which “is the best hazard ratio ever reported in this patient population in a randomized clinical setting,” said principal investigator Binod Dhakal, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Dr. Dhakal reported data from the first analysis of the trial. At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached among 208 patients who received cilta-cel; PFS was 11.8 months for the 211 patients assigned to receive standard of care, which consisted of the physician’s choice of either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd).

Twelve-month PFS rates were 75.9% and 48.6%, respectively, and both the overall response rate (ORR) and the complete response (CR) rate were higher with the CAR T construct than with the standard of care (ORR, 84.6% vs. 67.3%; CR rates, 73.1% and 21.8%, respectively).

“My perspective on Dr. Dakhal and colleague’s data is that myeloma treatment should be revisited in the light of this,” commented invited discussant Asher Chanan-Khan, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla.

“Early CAR Ts demonstrating efficacy and safety and prior lines of treatment impact survival from CAR T in myeloma. In lymphoma, CAR T is almost replacing, if not already, autotransplant. Can this also be true for multiple myeloma?” he asked.

Dr. Chanan-Khan noted that there are at least four ongoing trials with CAR T targeting either the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) alone or in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Also commenting on the new results, ASCO Expert Oreofe Odejide, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a statement: “Lenalidomide has become a foundation of care for people with myeloma, but as its use has expanded, so has the number of patients whose disease will no longer respond to the treatment. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel has not only shown that it delivers remarkably effective outcomes, compared with patients’ current options, but also that it can be used safely earlier in the treatment phase.”
 

Already approved for refractory myeloma

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T that contains two single-domain antibodies that target BCMA. This target was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

The product is already approved for use in myeloma; it was approved in March 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies. That approval was based on results from phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 trial, which, as previously reported by this news organization, showed that early and deep responses with cilta-cel proved to be durable.

Final results of CARTITUDE-1, reported in a scientific poster at ASCO 2023, showed that almost half of patients (47.5%) who were treated with cilta-cel were free of disease progression at 3 years, and 59.8% had sustained, complete responses. In addition, the median PFS was longer than for any previously reported therapy for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the authors said.
 

CARTITUDE-4 details

For the CARTITUDE-4 trial, the investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who had experienced relapse after one to three prior lines of therapy that included a prosteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator. After stratification by the choice of PVd or DPd, Multiple Myeloma International Staging System, and number of prior lines of therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either cilta-cel or one of the two standard-of-care regimens previously described.

Patients assigned to cilta-cel received one or more cycles of either PVd or DPd as bridging therapy during the period from apheresis to infusion of the CAR T cells.

As already noted, cilta-cel showed superior PFS and response rates and was associated with a significantly higher rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, compared with standard of care, in the intention-to-treat population: 60.6% vs. 15.6%, which translates into an odds ratio for achieving MRD negativity with CAR T of 8.7 (P < .0001). Among the subset of patients evaluable for MRD, the respective rates were 87.5% and 32.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of presentation. In all, 39 patients in the cilta-cel arm and 47 in the standard-of-care arm died during the study.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 97% of patients who received cilta-cel and in 94% of those who received standard-of-care therapies. In the cilta-cel arm, 76.1% of patients had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although only 1.1% of cases were of grade 3 or 4 in severity, and there were no CRS-associated deaths. Eight patients in this arm had immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, all of grade 1 or 2. One patient had grade 1 movement and neurocognitive symptoms, 16 had grade 2 or 3 cranial nerve palsy, and 5 patients had CAR T–related peripheral neuropathy of grade 1, 2, or 3.

The investigators plan to follow patients to determine the long-term effects of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and are currently performing analyses of health-related quality of life, subgroups, and biomarkers.

The study was funded by Janssen and Legend Biotech, which market ciltacabtagene autoleucel. Dr. Dhakal disclosed consulting, speaker’s bureau participation, and institutional research funding from Janssen and others. Several coauthors are employees of the study funders. Dr. Chanan-Khan’s relevant financial information was not available. Dr. Odejide reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).

This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.

A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Understanding and preventing this side effect of novel treatments could help patients for whom such medications are effective avoid the need to stop using them prematurely.
 

Combination therapies

Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.

The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.

The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
 

Increased thrombosis risk

The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.

The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.

The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).

At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”

In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”

Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).

This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.

A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Understanding and preventing this side effect of novel treatments could help patients for whom such medications are effective avoid the need to stop using them prematurely.
 

Combination therapies

Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.

The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.

The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
 

Increased thrombosis risk

The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.

The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.

The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).

At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”

In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”

Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).

This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.

A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Understanding and preventing this side effect of novel treatments could help patients for whom such medications are effective avoid the need to stop using them prematurely.
 

Combination therapies

Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.

The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.

The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
 

Increased thrombosis risk

The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.

The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.

The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).

At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”

In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”

Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Oncologist Denise Yardley, MD, isn’t used to expressing uncertainty when she tells patients about what’s in store for them in terms of drug treatment. But things are dramatically different now amid a severe national shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin, two common and crucial cancer drugs.

“There’s a regimen I’m thinking about,” Dr. Yardley told a new patient recently, “but we’ll have to wait until you finish your staging evaluation to see whether I can deliver this. Another regimen that’s a little more toxic is my second choice.” And, she added, the alternative chemotherapy treatment – anthracycline instead of carboplatin – requires a longer treatment period.

This ambiguity is hardly ideal, said Dr. Yardley, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville. “It’s another factor in being overwhelmed in a first-time visit and wanting to know the details about what your treatment is going to look like. You’re not walking out knowing exactly what you’re going to take or the exact timing so you can start mapping out your calendar and work schedule.”

This kind of scenario is becoming all too familiar this spring, according to oncologists who gathered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In interviews, these physicians said the limited supply of multiple cancer drugs – including the chemotherapies carboplatin and cisplatin – is having an unprecedented negative effect since their use is so widespread in cancer care.

“Every patient could get impacted. That’s why we need to address this sooner rather than later,” said oncologist Aditya Baria, MBBS, MPH, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Shortages of cancer drugs are not unusual. Three-quarters of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations surveyed from 2019 to 2020 said shortages prompted treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens. But the current shortages are having a much wider impact.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recently reported that 93% of 27 member institutions surveyed in late May are short on carboplatin, and 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin. Plus, 20% of 19 centers said they weren’t able to continue carboplatin regimens for all patients. 

The drugs are mainstays of multiple types of treatment for a long list of cancer types including lung, breast, gynecologic, and many others.

Several scenarios are possible when the drugs are in short supply, said Dr. Yardley, who noted that the shortage is more severe than any she’s seen in her medical career of more than 3 decades. Patients may need to be switched to regimens with more side effects, even when they’re in the middle of a treatment, she said. Or patients might have to go longer between treatments.

In some cases, Dr. Yardley said, the shortage is forcing patients to go without an important component of a larger combination therapy regimen. “The Keynote 522 neoadjuvant regimen for triple-negative breast cancer has carboplatin given with Taxol [paclitaxel] and Keytruda [pembrolizumab]. We are just deleting the carboplatin.”

She added that carboplatin is part of the following so-called TCHP regimen for HER2+ early-stage breast cancer: Taxotere (docetaxel), carboplatin, Herceptin (trastuzumab), and Perjeta (pertuzumab).

“You can delete [carboplatin] or consider substituting cyclophosphamide for carboplatin,” she said. But she cautioned the Keynote 522 and TCHP regimens haven’t been tested without carboplatin in curative-intent trials.

At Duke University in Durham, N.C., doses of carboplatin for many patients are being lowered by a third to the level that’s commonly used for older and frail patients, said oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who works at the academic center and is the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society.

“We don’t know if [the lower doses will negatively affect cancer patients’ outcomes]. What’s amazing is how many patients [are understanding about having to take smaller amounts of the chemotherapy],” he said.

Medical organizations are offering guidance. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology, for example, in late April recommended that oncologists increase intervals between chemotherapy treatments when appropriate, round down vial sizes to ensure “efficient use,” and eliminate or minimize use of cisplatin and carboplatin in certain platinum-resistant cancers.

In early June, ASCO published guidance regarding alternatives to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, which is also in short supply, in gastrointestinal cancer. As the guidance notes, some alternatives are more untested or more toxic than ideal treatments.

In addition, ASCO has a webpage devoted to news and resources about shortages of cancer drugs. It offers drug availability updates, general guidance, and breast cancer guidance. ASCO also offers ethical guidance about handling drug shortages.

Patients in clinical trials and those who hope to join them are especially vulnerable to the drug shortage, oncologists interviewed for this story said. Cisplatin and carboplatin are the backbones of many clinical trials, Dr. Yardley said. “When you can’t supply a drug in one of the [trial] arms, that puts the whole trial on pause.”

Even clinics that have managed to find adequate supplies of the drugs are planning for when they run out.

“Our institution and other institutions are trying to come up with a rationing protocol, deciding which patients are going to get access, and which ones have reasonable alternatives,” radiation oncologist Corey Speers MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “In some settings, there really isn’t an effective alternative. Or the alternatives are tens of thousands of dollars more expensive.”

Oncologists also noted that cisplatin and carboplatin aren’t the only cancer drugs in short supply.

“Methotrexate is critically low, and 5FU [fluorouracil] is critically low,” Dr. Yardley said, referring to drugs that each treat several types of cancer. According to the May NCNN survey, 67% of respondents reported low supplies of methotrexate, and 26% said they were low on 5FU.

“Viscous lidocaine is a component of many supportive care mouth rinses for the stomatitis caused by our drugs but is not available at all,” Dr. Yardley said. 

She added that there are also low supplies of fludarabine, which is used to treat chronic lymphocytic lymphom; clofarabine, which is used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and rasburicase, which is used to treat high levels of uric acid in patients on chemotherapy.

Dr. Speers said his institution is facing a shortage of capecitabine, which is used to treat several types of cancer.

“Numerous trials have demonstrated the improved, safety, efficacy, and convenience of oral capecitabine. With the shortage we’re having to use infusional 5FU, which not only is less convenient but also ends up being more costly and requires infusion room space or continuous infusion pumps. This impacts our ability to treat cancer patients,” he said. “Our capacity is becoming more limited to accommodate these added patients, and we have to use infusional formulations of a drug that previously was readily available via an oral formulation. Patients and caregivers now have to come to the cancer center for appointments and infusions that previously weren’t needed as they could take an oral pill.”

Dr. Speers added that his institution is rationing methotrexate. “We are now prioritizing patients being treated with curative intent and adjusting protocols to use the lowest allowable doses to conserve supply,” he said.

The roots of the platinum chemotherapy drug shortage link back to the India-based Intas Pharmaceuticals company, a major manufacturer of cisplatin and carboplatin. According to Kellyann Zuzulo, spokeperson for Accord Healthcare, an Instas U.S. subsidiary, a facility inspection in December 2022 prompted a decision to temporarily stop making the drugs. The inspection identified multiple problems.

“Intas and Accord are working with the FDA on a plan to return to manufacturing,” Ms. Zuzulo said in an interview. “This will allow for continued production of products that will be prioritized based on medical necessity. A date has not yet been confirmed in which the facility will return to manufacturing for cisplatin, carboplatin or any other products.”

Ms. Zuzulo said the company is not a health care provider and cannot offer advice to patients about alternatives.

Other companies that make cisplatin and carboplatin have also reported shortages. In interviews, representatives for Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said the companies have limited supplies because of increased demand – not because of manufacturing problems.

On June 12, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) reported that carboplatin remains in short supply, with all five companies that sell the drug listed as having limited or back-ordered supplies. Cisplatin is also in short supply, the organization reported in a June 9 update, although some is available.

In a June 12 update on methotrexate, ASHP said manufacturing delays at Accord have caused a shortage, and other companies are running low due to increased demand.

As for the future, Congress and the Biden administration, according to a report by Bloomberg, are trying to figure out what to do regarding shortages of cheap generic drugs such as cisplatin and carboplatin. The FDA is exploring a partnership with a Chinese drugmaker to make cisplatin, NBC News reported.

However, fixes will be challenging, according to former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“This generic business, particularly for these complex drugs, these complex formulations, is not a healthy business right now. Yet it’s a vital business from a public standpoint,” he told CBS News.

In an interview, Dr. Kamal said that there is even talk about boosting the prices of cheap generic drugs “to ensure that there’s enough incentive for multiple manufacturers to be involved.”

Dr. Kamal said he is crossing his fingers that cutting chemotherapy doses at his clinic doesn’t result in worse outcomes for his patients.

“Right now, I think dropping someone by 25% or 30% is okay. And for some patients, particularly in a curative setting, we try to keep them at as much as 100% as possible. But there’s just a lot of unknowns,” he said.

CHICAGO – Oncologist Denise Yardley, MD, isn’t used to expressing uncertainty when she tells patients about what’s in store for them in terms of drug treatment. But things are dramatically different now amid a severe national shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin, two common and crucial cancer drugs.

“There’s a regimen I’m thinking about,” Dr. Yardley told a new patient recently, “but we’ll have to wait until you finish your staging evaluation to see whether I can deliver this. Another regimen that’s a little more toxic is my second choice.” And, she added, the alternative chemotherapy treatment – anthracycline instead of carboplatin – requires a longer treatment period.

This ambiguity is hardly ideal, said Dr. Yardley, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville. “It’s another factor in being overwhelmed in a first-time visit and wanting to know the details about what your treatment is going to look like. You’re not walking out knowing exactly what you’re going to take or the exact timing so you can start mapping out your calendar and work schedule.”

This kind of scenario is becoming all too familiar this spring, according to oncologists who gathered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In interviews, these physicians said the limited supply of multiple cancer drugs – including the chemotherapies carboplatin and cisplatin – is having an unprecedented negative effect since their use is so widespread in cancer care.

“Every patient could get impacted. That’s why we need to address this sooner rather than later,” said oncologist Aditya Baria, MBBS, MPH, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Shortages of cancer drugs are not unusual. Three-quarters of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations surveyed from 2019 to 2020 said shortages prompted treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens. But the current shortages are having a much wider impact.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recently reported that 93% of 27 member institutions surveyed in late May are short on carboplatin, and 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin. Plus, 20% of 19 centers said they weren’t able to continue carboplatin regimens for all patients. 

The drugs are mainstays of multiple types of treatment for a long list of cancer types including lung, breast, gynecologic, and many others.

Several scenarios are possible when the drugs are in short supply, said Dr. Yardley, who noted that the shortage is more severe than any she’s seen in her medical career of more than 3 decades. Patients may need to be switched to regimens with more side effects, even when they’re in the middle of a treatment, she said. Or patients might have to go longer between treatments.

In some cases, Dr. Yardley said, the shortage is forcing patients to go without an important component of a larger combination therapy regimen. “The Keynote 522 neoadjuvant regimen for triple-negative breast cancer has carboplatin given with Taxol [paclitaxel] and Keytruda [pembrolizumab]. We are just deleting the carboplatin.”

She added that carboplatin is part of the following so-called TCHP regimen for HER2+ early-stage breast cancer: Taxotere (docetaxel), carboplatin, Herceptin (trastuzumab), and Perjeta (pertuzumab).

“You can delete [carboplatin] or consider substituting cyclophosphamide for carboplatin,” she said. But she cautioned the Keynote 522 and TCHP regimens haven’t been tested without carboplatin in curative-intent trials.

At Duke University in Durham, N.C., doses of carboplatin for many patients are being lowered by a third to the level that’s commonly used for older and frail patients, said oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who works at the academic center and is the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society.

“We don’t know if [the lower doses will negatively affect cancer patients’ outcomes]. What’s amazing is how many patients [are understanding about having to take smaller amounts of the chemotherapy],” he said.

Medical organizations are offering guidance. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology, for example, in late April recommended that oncologists increase intervals between chemotherapy treatments when appropriate, round down vial sizes to ensure “efficient use,” and eliminate or minimize use of cisplatin and carboplatin in certain platinum-resistant cancers.

In early June, ASCO published guidance regarding alternatives to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, which is also in short supply, in gastrointestinal cancer. As the guidance notes, some alternatives are more untested or more toxic than ideal treatments.

In addition, ASCO has a webpage devoted to news and resources about shortages of cancer drugs. It offers drug availability updates, general guidance, and breast cancer guidance. ASCO also offers ethical guidance about handling drug shortages.

Patients in clinical trials and those who hope to join them are especially vulnerable to the drug shortage, oncologists interviewed for this story said. Cisplatin and carboplatin are the backbones of many clinical trials, Dr. Yardley said. “When you can’t supply a drug in one of the [trial] arms, that puts the whole trial on pause.”

Even clinics that have managed to find adequate supplies of the drugs are planning for when they run out.

“Our institution and other institutions are trying to come up with a rationing protocol, deciding which patients are going to get access, and which ones have reasonable alternatives,” radiation oncologist Corey Speers MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “In some settings, there really isn’t an effective alternative. Or the alternatives are tens of thousands of dollars more expensive.”

Oncologists also noted that cisplatin and carboplatin aren’t the only cancer drugs in short supply.

“Methotrexate is critically low, and 5FU [fluorouracil] is critically low,” Dr. Yardley said, referring to drugs that each treat several types of cancer. According to the May NCNN survey, 67% of respondents reported low supplies of methotrexate, and 26% said they were low on 5FU.

“Viscous lidocaine is a component of many supportive care mouth rinses for the stomatitis caused by our drugs but is not available at all,” Dr. Yardley said. 

She added that there are also low supplies of fludarabine, which is used to treat chronic lymphocytic lymphom; clofarabine, which is used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and rasburicase, which is used to treat high levels of uric acid in patients on chemotherapy.

Dr. Speers said his institution is facing a shortage of capecitabine, which is used to treat several types of cancer.

“Numerous trials have demonstrated the improved, safety, efficacy, and convenience of oral capecitabine. With the shortage we’re having to use infusional 5FU, which not only is less convenient but also ends up being more costly and requires infusion room space or continuous infusion pumps. This impacts our ability to treat cancer patients,” he said. “Our capacity is becoming more limited to accommodate these added patients, and we have to use infusional formulations of a drug that previously was readily available via an oral formulation. Patients and caregivers now have to come to the cancer center for appointments and infusions that previously weren’t needed as they could take an oral pill.”

Dr. Speers added that his institution is rationing methotrexate. “We are now prioritizing patients being treated with curative intent and adjusting protocols to use the lowest allowable doses to conserve supply,” he said.

The roots of the platinum chemotherapy drug shortage link back to the India-based Intas Pharmaceuticals company, a major manufacturer of cisplatin and carboplatin. According to Kellyann Zuzulo, spokeperson for Accord Healthcare, an Instas U.S. subsidiary, a facility inspection in December 2022 prompted a decision to temporarily stop making the drugs. The inspection identified multiple problems.

“Intas and Accord are working with the FDA on a plan to return to manufacturing,” Ms. Zuzulo said in an interview. “This will allow for continued production of products that will be prioritized based on medical necessity. A date has not yet been confirmed in which the facility will return to manufacturing for cisplatin, carboplatin or any other products.”

Ms. Zuzulo said the company is not a health care provider and cannot offer advice to patients about alternatives.

Other companies that make cisplatin and carboplatin have also reported shortages. In interviews, representatives for Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said the companies have limited supplies because of increased demand – not because of manufacturing problems.

On June 12, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) reported that carboplatin remains in short supply, with all five companies that sell the drug listed as having limited or back-ordered supplies. Cisplatin is also in short supply, the organization reported in a June 9 update, although some is available.

In a June 12 update on methotrexate, ASHP said manufacturing delays at Accord have caused a shortage, and other companies are running low due to increased demand.

As for the future, Congress and the Biden administration, according to a report by Bloomberg, are trying to figure out what to do regarding shortages of cheap generic drugs such as cisplatin and carboplatin. The FDA is exploring a partnership with a Chinese drugmaker to make cisplatin, NBC News reported.

However, fixes will be challenging, according to former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“This generic business, particularly for these complex drugs, these complex formulations, is not a healthy business right now. Yet it’s a vital business from a public standpoint,” he told CBS News.

In an interview, Dr. Kamal said that there is even talk about boosting the prices of cheap generic drugs “to ensure that there’s enough incentive for multiple manufacturers to be involved.”

Dr. Kamal said he is crossing his fingers that cutting chemotherapy doses at his clinic doesn’t result in worse outcomes for his patients.

“Right now, I think dropping someone by 25% or 30% is okay. And for some patients, particularly in a curative setting, we try to keep them at as much as 100% as possible. But there’s just a lot of unknowns,” he said.

CHICAGO – Oncologist Denise Yardley, MD, isn’t used to expressing uncertainty when she tells patients about what’s in store for them in terms of drug treatment. But things are dramatically different now amid a severe national shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin, two common and crucial cancer drugs.

“There’s a regimen I’m thinking about,” Dr. Yardley told a new patient recently, “but we’ll have to wait until you finish your staging evaluation to see whether I can deliver this. Another regimen that’s a little more toxic is my second choice.” And, she added, the alternative chemotherapy treatment – anthracycline instead of carboplatin – requires a longer treatment period.

This ambiguity is hardly ideal, said Dr. Yardley, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville. “It’s another factor in being overwhelmed in a first-time visit and wanting to know the details about what your treatment is going to look like. You’re not walking out knowing exactly what you’re going to take or the exact timing so you can start mapping out your calendar and work schedule.”

This kind of scenario is becoming all too familiar this spring, according to oncologists who gathered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In interviews, these physicians said the limited supply of multiple cancer drugs – including the chemotherapies carboplatin and cisplatin – is having an unprecedented negative effect since their use is so widespread in cancer care.

“Every patient could get impacted. That’s why we need to address this sooner rather than later,” said oncologist Aditya Baria, MBBS, MPH, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Shortages of cancer drugs are not unusual. Three-quarters of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations surveyed from 2019 to 2020 said shortages prompted treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens. But the current shortages are having a much wider impact.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recently reported that 93% of 27 member institutions surveyed in late May are short on carboplatin, and 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin. Plus, 20% of 19 centers said they weren’t able to continue carboplatin regimens for all patients. 

The drugs are mainstays of multiple types of treatment for a long list of cancer types including lung, breast, gynecologic, and many others.

Several scenarios are possible when the drugs are in short supply, said Dr. Yardley, who noted that the shortage is more severe than any she’s seen in her medical career of more than 3 decades. Patients may need to be switched to regimens with more side effects, even when they’re in the middle of a treatment, she said. Or patients might have to go longer between treatments.

In some cases, Dr. Yardley said, the shortage is forcing patients to go without an important component of a larger combination therapy regimen. “The Keynote 522 neoadjuvant regimen for triple-negative breast cancer has carboplatin given with Taxol [paclitaxel] and Keytruda [pembrolizumab]. We are just deleting the carboplatin.”

She added that carboplatin is part of the following so-called TCHP regimen for HER2+ early-stage breast cancer: Taxotere (docetaxel), carboplatin, Herceptin (trastuzumab), and Perjeta (pertuzumab).

“You can delete [carboplatin] or consider substituting cyclophosphamide for carboplatin,” she said. But she cautioned the Keynote 522 and TCHP regimens haven’t been tested without carboplatin in curative-intent trials.

At Duke University in Durham, N.C., doses of carboplatin for many patients are being lowered by a third to the level that’s commonly used for older and frail patients, said oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who works at the academic center and is the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society.

“We don’t know if [the lower doses will negatively affect cancer patients’ outcomes]. What’s amazing is how many patients [are understanding about having to take smaller amounts of the chemotherapy],” he said.

Medical organizations are offering guidance. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology, for example, in late April recommended that oncologists increase intervals between chemotherapy treatments when appropriate, round down vial sizes to ensure “efficient use,” and eliminate or minimize use of cisplatin and carboplatin in certain platinum-resistant cancers.

In early June, ASCO published guidance regarding alternatives to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, which is also in short supply, in gastrointestinal cancer. As the guidance notes, some alternatives are more untested or more toxic than ideal treatments.

In addition, ASCO has a webpage devoted to news and resources about shortages of cancer drugs. It offers drug availability updates, general guidance, and breast cancer guidance. ASCO also offers ethical guidance about handling drug shortages.

Patients in clinical trials and those who hope to join them are especially vulnerable to the drug shortage, oncologists interviewed for this story said. Cisplatin and carboplatin are the backbones of many clinical trials, Dr. Yardley said. “When you can’t supply a drug in one of the [trial] arms, that puts the whole trial on pause.”

Even clinics that have managed to find adequate supplies of the drugs are planning for when they run out.

“Our institution and other institutions are trying to come up with a rationing protocol, deciding which patients are going to get access, and which ones have reasonable alternatives,” radiation oncologist Corey Speers MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “In some settings, there really isn’t an effective alternative. Or the alternatives are tens of thousands of dollars more expensive.”

Oncologists also noted that cisplatin and carboplatin aren’t the only cancer drugs in short supply.

“Methotrexate is critically low, and 5FU [fluorouracil] is critically low,” Dr. Yardley said, referring to drugs that each treat several types of cancer. According to the May NCNN survey, 67% of respondents reported low supplies of methotrexate, and 26% said they were low on 5FU.

“Viscous lidocaine is a component of many supportive care mouth rinses for the stomatitis caused by our drugs but is not available at all,” Dr. Yardley said. 

She added that there are also low supplies of fludarabine, which is used to treat chronic lymphocytic lymphom; clofarabine, which is used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and rasburicase, which is used to treat high levels of uric acid in patients on chemotherapy.

Dr. Speers said his institution is facing a shortage of capecitabine, which is used to treat several types of cancer.

“Numerous trials have demonstrated the improved, safety, efficacy, and convenience of oral capecitabine. With the shortage we’re having to use infusional 5FU, which not only is less convenient but also ends up being more costly and requires infusion room space or continuous infusion pumps. This impacts our ability to treat cancer patients,” he said. “Our capacity is becoming more limited to accommodate these added patients, and we have to use infusional formulations of a drug that previously was readily available via an oral formulation. Patients and caregivers now have to come to the cancer center for appointments and infusions that previously weren’t needed as they could take an oral pill.”

Dr. Speers added that his institution is rationing methotrexate. “We are now prioritizing patients being treated with curative intent and adjusting protocols to use the lowest allowable doses to conserve supply,” he said.

The roots of the platinum chemotherapy drug shortage link back to the India-based Intas Pharmaceuticals company, a major manufacturer of cisplatin and carboplatin. According to Kellyann Zuzulo, spokeperson for Accord Healthcare, an Instas U.S. subsidiary, a facility inspection in December 2022 prompted a decision to temporarily stop making the drugs. The inspection identified multiple problems.

“Intas and Accord are working with the FDA on a plan to return to manufacturing,” Ms. Zuzulo said in an interview. “This will allow for continued production of products that will be prioritized based on medical necessity. A date has not yet been confirmed in which the facility will return to manufacturing for cisplatin, carboplatin or any other products.”

Ms. Zuzulo said the company is not a health care provider and cannot offer advice to patients about alternatives.

Other companies that make cisplatin and carboplatin have also reported shortages. In interviews, representatives for Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said the companies have limited supplies because of increased demand – not because of manufacturing problems.

On June 12, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) reported that carboplatin remains in short supply, with all five companies that sell the drug listed as having limited or back-ordered supplies. Cisplatin is also in short supply, the organization reported in a June 9 update, although some is available.

In a June 12 update on methotrexate, ASHP said manufacturing delays at Accord have caused a shortage, and other companies are running low due to increased demand.

As for the future, Congress and the Biden administration, according to a report by Bloomberg, are trying to figure out what to do regarding shortages of cheap generic drugs such as cisplatin and carboplatin. The FDA is exploring a partnership with a Chinese drugmaker to make cisplatin, NBC News reported.

However, fixes will be challenging, according to former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“This generic business, particularly for these complex drugs, these complex formulations, is not a healthy business right now. Yet it’s a vital business from a public standpoint,” he told CBS News.

In an interview, Dr. Kamal said that there is even talk about boosting the prices of cheap generic drugs “to ensure that there’s enough incentive for multiple manufacturers to be involved.”

Dr. Kamal said he is crossing his fingers that cutting chemotherapy doses at his clinic doesn’t result in worse outcomes for his patients.

“Right now, I think dropping someone by 25% or 30% is okay. And for some patients, particularly in a curative setting, we try to keep them at as much as 100% as possible. But there’s just a lot of unknowns,” he said.