TBD Meeting (3035-23)

Survival from pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in a Mexican hospital improved significantly through a close cross-border collaboration with a nearby U.S. center that provided training and improved access.

A team from a hospital in San Diego combined a previously established training program from the World Health Organization with a new collaboration, which resulted in improvements in care standards and sustainability of care in a center in Tijuana, Mexico, just 23 miles away.

Implementation of the program in 2013 led to a significant 6% improvement in 5-year overall survival for children with ALL.

For patients at standard risk, 5-year overall survival increased from 73% to 100% after implementation of the program.

“This is really remarkable because this survival is the same as we have here in San Diego,” commented Paula Aristizabal, MD, MAS, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, at a press briefing before the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The findings show that “sustained improvements in cancer outcomes in low- and middle-income countries [LMICs] are feasible with innovative cross-border programs, particularly in borders that are shared” between a high- and low-income country, she commented. In other words, “it takes a village in both countries” to drive up standards.

Dr. Aristizabal also noted that the partnership will continue with a particularly focus on improving survival among patients with high-risk disease.

“We like to call it ‘twinning,’ because that means we are twins forever,” she said. “This is not a marriage that can be dissolved.”
 

‘Huge survival gap’

“The burden of childhood cancer has increased globally, but unfortunately, survival in low- and middle-income countries has not improved at the same level as in high-income countries,” Dr. Aristizabal commented.

This has resulted in a “huge survival gap” between high-income countries and the LMICs. ALL is now a leading cause of death among children in these countries, she commented.

“This study illustrates collaborative strategies that can be put into place today that could greatly improve outcomes for children with cancer globally,” commented Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president.

Speaking at the press conference, she added: “As I’ve heard Princess Dina Mired of Jordan say many times: ‘Your ZIP code should not determine if you survive cancer.’ ”

She said the differences in ALL survival between the United States and Mexico are an “example of children being so close in terms of proximity not having the same advantages.”

Also commenting, ASCO President Eric Winer, MD, from the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., asked whether the proximity of the hospitals in San Diego and Tijuana “makes a difference, or do you think this is something that done ... at a distance?”

Dr. Aristizabal said that the proximity between the institutions “has been extremely helpful,” as they can go between hospitals in just 30 minutes.

However, “one of the things that we learned with COVID is that we can do a lot of things remotely,” she answered.

“Some of the projects that we started in Tijuana, through our collaboration with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, we have been able to implement in many other centers in Mexico,” she said.
 

Study details

Rady Children’s Hospital partnered with the public sector in Baja California, with the aim of improving outcomes in children’s cancer, she explained.

In 2008, the team collaborated with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, to establish a training program in the Hospital General Tijuana in Tijuana that shared knowledge, technology, and organizational skills.

The team also consulted on clinical cases and set up education and research programs, all with the aim of building capacity and sustainability in Mexico.

“As the number of leukemia patients increased, we wanted to decrease depending on their international collaborators in the U.S. and ensure long-term sustainability,” Dr. Aristizabal explained.

This led in 2013 to the implementation of the WHO Framework for Action HSS training model, which has several components, including health service delivery.

Combined with the previously established model, the overall goals of the program were to improve health outcomes, systems efficiency, timely access to care, and social and financial risk protection.

Dr. Aristizabal said in an interview that this involved developing highly specific leukemia treatment guidelines, which have now gone through three iterations, as well as guidelines for supportive care.

Working with a local foundation, the team has also “focused on providing psychosocial support, nutritional support, a shelter for families that live 12-14 hours away from the pediatric cancer center, as well as food subsidies, trying to address financial toxicity and food insecurity in these families.”
 

Impact of the collaboration

To assess the impact of the WHO framework, the researchers conducted a study that involved 109 children with ALL who were treated at Hospital General Tijuana over the preimplementation phase in 2008-2012 and the postimplementation phase in 2013-2017.

The mean age of the patients was 7.04 years, and 50.4% were girls. The majority (67%) were classified as having high-risk disease.

Over the entire study period, the 5-year overall survival rate was 65%. Analysis revealed that between the pre- and postimplementation periods, 5-year overall survival increased from 59% to 65%, which Dr. Aristizabal described as “a significant improvement.”

Among high-risk patients, the improvement in 5-year survival between the pre- and postimplementation period went from 48% to 55%.

“This is an area for improvement,” Dr. Aristizabal said, “and we’re working on additional strategies to help improve survival for high-risk patients.

The study was funded by Rady Children’s Hospital, the Mexican Secretary of Health, and the Patronato Foundation. Dr. Aristizabal and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Winer reported relationships with Leap Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Carrick Therapeutics, and Genentech.

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

Survival from pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in a Mexican hospital improved significantly through a close cross-border collaboration with a nearby U.S. center that provided training and improved access.

A team from a hospital in San Diego combined a previously established training program from the World Health Organization with a new collaboration, which resulted in improvements in care standards and sustainability of care in a center in Tijuana, Mexico, just 23 miles away.

Implementation of the program in 2013 led to a significant 6% improvement in 5-year overall survival for children with ALL.

For patients at standard risk, 5-year overall survival increased from 73% to 100% after implementation of the program.

“This is really remarkable because this survival is the same as we have here in San Diego,” commented Paula Aristizabal, MD, MAS, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, at a press briefing before the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The findings show that “sustained improvements in cancer outcomes in low- and middle-income countries [LMICs] are feasible with innovative cross-border programs, particularly in borders that are shared” between a high- and low-income country, she commented. In other words, “it takes a village in both countries” to drive up standards.

Dr. Aristizabal also noted that the partnership will continue with a particularly focus on improving survival among patients with high-risk disease.

“We like to call it ‘twinning,’ because that means we are twins forever,” she said. “This is not a marriage that can be dissolved.”
 

‘Huge survival gap’

“The burden of childhood cancer has increased globally, but unfortunately, survival in low- and middle-income countries has not improved at the same level as in high-income countries,” Dr. Aristizabal commented.

This has resulted in a “huge survival gap” between high-income countries and the LMICs. ALL is now a leading cause of death among children in these countries, she commented.

“This study illustrates collaborative strategies that can be put into place today that could greatly improve outcomes for children with cancer globally,” commented Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president.

Speaking at the press conference, she added: “As I’ve heard Princess Dina Mired of Jordan say many times: ‘Your ZIP code should not determine if you survive cancer.’ ”

She said the differences in ALL survival between the United States and Mexico are an “example of children being so close in terms of proximity not having the same advantages.”

Also commenting, ASCO President Eric Winer, MD, from the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., asked whether the proximity of the hospitals in San Diego and Tijuana “makes a difference, or do you think this is something that done ... at a distance?”

Dr. Aristizabal said that the proximity between the institutions “has been extremely helpful,” as they can go between hospitals in just 30 minutes.

However, “one of the things that we learned with COVID is that we can do a lot of things remotely,” she answered.

“Some of the projects that we started in Tijuana, through our collaboration with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, we have been able to implement in many other centers in Mexico,” she said.
 

Study details

Rady Children’s Hospital partnered with the public sector in Baja California, with the aim of improving outcomes in children’s cancer, she explained.

In 2008, the team collaborated with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, to establish a training program in the Hospital General Tijuana in Tijuana that shared knowledge, technology, and organizational skills.

The team also consulted on clinical cases and set up education and research programs, all with the aim of building capacity and sustainability in Mexico.

“As the number of leukemia patients increased, we wanted to decrease depending on their international collaborators in the U.S. and ensure long-term sustainability,” Dr. Aristizabal explained.

This led in 2013 to the implementation of the WHO Framework for Action HSS training model, which has several components, including health service delivery.

Combined with the previously established model, the overall goals of the program were to improve health outcomes, systems efficiency, timely access to care, and social and financial risk protection.

Dr. Aristizabal said in an interview that this involved developing highly specific leukemia treatment guidelines, which have now gone through three iterations, as well as guidelines for supportive care.

Working with a local foundation, the team has also “focused on providing psychosocial support, nutritional support, a shelter for families that live 12-14 hours away from the pediatric cancer center, as well as food subsidies, trying to address financial toxicity and food insecurity in these families.”
 

Impact of the collaboration

To assess the impact of the WHO framework, the researchers conducted a study that involved 109 children with ALL who were treated at Hospital General Tijuana over the preimplementation phase in 2008-2012 and the postimplementation phase in 2013-2017.

The mean age of the patients was 7.04 years, and 50.4% were girls. The majority (67%) were classified as having high-risk disease.

Over the entire study period, the 5-year overall survival rate was 65%. Analysis revealed that between the pre- and postimplementation periods, 5-year overall survival increased from 59% to 65%, which Dr. Aristizabal described as “a significant improvement.”

Among high-risk patients, the improvement in 5-year survival between the pre- and postimplementation period went from 48% to 55%.

“This is an area for improvement,” Dr. Aristizabal said, “and we’re working on additional strategies to help improve survival for high-risk patients.

The study was funded by Rady Children’s Hospital, the Mexican Secretary of Health, and the Patronato Foundation. Dr. Aristizabal and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Winer reported relationships with Leap Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Carrick Therapeutics, and Genentech.

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

Survival from pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in a Mexican hospital improved significantly through a close cross-border collaboration with a nearby U.S. center that provided training and improved access.

A team from a hospital in San Diego combined a previously established training program from the World Health Organization with a new collaboration, which resulted in improvements in care standards and sustainability of care in a center in Tijuana, Mexico, just 23 miles away.

Implementation of the program in 2013 led to a significant 6% improvement in 5-year overall survival for children with ALL.

For patients at standard risk, 5-year overall survival increased from 73% to 100% after implementation of the program.

“This is really remarkable because this survival is the same as we have here in San Diego,” commented Paula Aristizabal, MD, MAS, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, at a press briefing before the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The findings show that “sustained improvements in cancer outcomes in low- and middle-income countries [LMICs] are feasible with innovative cross-border programs, particularly in borders that are shared” between a high- and low-income country, she commented. In other words, “it takes a village in both countries” to drive up standards.

Dr. Aristizabal also noted that the partnership will continue with a particularly focus on improving survival among patients with high-risk disease.

“We like to call it ‘twinning,’ because that means we are twins forever,” she said. “This is not a marriage that can be dissolved.”
 

‘Huge survival gap’

“The burden of childhood cancer has increased globally, but unfortunately, survival in low- and middle-income countries has not improved at the same level as in high-income countries,” Dr. Aristizabal commented.

This has resulted in a “huge survival gap” between high-income countries and the LMICs. ALL is now a leading cause of death among children in these countries, she commented.

“This study illustrates collaborative strategies that can be put into place today that could greatly improve outcomes for children with cancer globally,” commented Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president.

Speaking at the press conference, she added: “As I’ve heard Princess Dina Mired of Jordan say many times: ‘Your ZIP code should not determine if you survive cancer.’ ”

She said the differences in ALL survival between the United States and Mexico are an “example of children being so close in terms of proximity not having the same advantages.”

Also commenting, ASCO President Eric Winer, MD, from the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., asked whether the proximity of the hospitals in San Diego and Tijuana “makes a difference, or do you think this is something that done ... at a distance?”

Dr. Aristizabal said that the proximity between the institutions “has been extremely helpful,” as they can go between hospitals in just 30 minutes.

However, “one of the things that we learned with COVID is that we can do a lot of things remotely,” she answered.

“Some of the projects that we started in Tijuana, through our collaboration with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, we have been able to implement in many other centers in Mexico,” she said.
 

Study details

Rady Children’s Hospital partnered with the public sector in Baja California, with the aim of improving outcomes in children’s cancer, she explained.

In 2008, the team collaborated with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, to establish a training program in the Hospital General Tijuana in Tijuana that shared knowledge, technology, and organizational skills.

The team also consulted on clinical cases and set up education and research programs, all with the aim of building capacity and sustainability in Mexico.

“As the number of leukemia patients increased, we wanted to decrease depending on their international collaborators in the U.S. and ensure long-term sustainability,” Dr. Aristizabal explained.

This led in 2013 to the implementation of the WHO Framework for Action HSS training model, which has several components, including health service delivery.

Combined with the previously established model, the overall goals of the program were to improve health outcomes, systems efficiency, timely access to care, and social and financial risk protection.

Dr. Aristizabal said in an interview that this involved developing highly specific leukemia treatment guidelines, which have now gone through three iterations, as well as guidelines for supportive care.

Working with a local foundation, the team has also “focused on providing psychosocial support, nutritional support, a shelter for families that live 12-14 hours away from the pediatric cancer center, as well as food subsidies, trying to address financial toxicity and food insecurity in these families.”
 

Impact of the collaboration

To assess the impact of the WHO framework, the researchers conducted a study that involved 109 children with ALL who were treated at Hospital General Tijuana over the preimplementation phase in 2008-2012 and the postimplementation phase in 2013-2017.

The mean age of the patients was 7.04 years, and 50.4% were girls. The majority (67%) were classified as having high-risk disease.

Over the entire study period, the 5-year overall survival rate was 65%. Analysis revealed that between the pre- and postimplementation periods, 5-year overall survival increased from 59% to 65%, which Dr. Aristizabal described as “a significant improvement.”

Among high-risk patients, the improvement in 5-year survival between the pre- and postimplementation period went from 48% to 55%.

“This is an area for improvement,” Dr. Aristizabal said, “and we’re working on additional strategies to help improve survival for high-risk patients.

The study was funded by Rady Children’s Hospital, the Mexican Secretary of Health, and the Patronato Foundation. Dr. Aristizabal and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Winer reported relationships with Leap Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Carrick Therapeutics, and Genentech.

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

CHICAGO – Nearly all patients who were diverted from chemotherapy prior to surgery for HER2-positive early breast cancer survived without cancer recurrence for 3 years, according to new findings from a phase 2 trial.

The secondary primary endpoint results from the PHERgain study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, provide more evidence to support a strategy that avoids chemotherapy as long as patients show signs of response to hormone therapy via PET scans. The results revealed that 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 96.3-100.0) of 86 patients who received treatment with trastuzumab and pertuzumab – but no chemotherapy – remained cancer free and alive 3 years after surgery (invasive disease–free survival).

“Only 1 out of 86 patients experience disease recurrence ... in those patients who never received chemotherapy,” said study lead author Javier Cortés, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, during his presentation at the meeting.

As Dr. Cortés noted, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab have improved lifespans in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer, sparking interest in whether chemotherapy can be de-escalated. The PHERgain study examines whether it can be avoided entirely.

The primary endpoint results of the multicenter, open-label, noncomparative study were released in The Lancet Oncology in 2021.
 

Study methods and results

At 45 hospitals in Europe, patients with HER2-positive, stage I-IIIA, invasive, operable breast cancer were randomly assigned between 2017 and 2019 to receive chemotherapy prior to surgery (n = 71, group A) or to only receive hormone therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab, unless PET scans suggested they needed chemotherapy because they weren’t properly responding (n = 285, group B).

At a median follow-up of 5.7 months, 86 patients in the latter group had a pathological complete response and therefore met the first primary endpoint.

The new analysis tracked patients for 3 years after they underwent surgery (n = 63 and 267 for patients in groups A and B, respectively). As previously noted, at a median follow-up of 43.3 months (range, 2.4-63.0 months), only 1 of 86 patients in group B who didn’t receive chemotherapy had a recurrence of cancer (a locoregional ipsilateral recurrence). The 98.8% invasive disease–free survival rate was higher that what was seen for patients in group B as a whole (95.4% invasive disease–free survival, 95% CI, 92.8%-98.0%, P < .001). The 95.4% met the study’s second primary endpoint.

Treatment-related adverse events were higher in the group that received chemotherapy only (group A) versus group B (experiencing an adverse event grade of at least 3, 61.8% vs. 32.9%, respectively, P < .001; serious adverse events, 27.9% vs. 13.8%, respectively; P = .01). Those in group B who didn’t receive any chemotherapy had very few treatment-related adverse events that were considered being greater than a grade 3 (1.2%) and no treatment-related serious adverse events. The researchers reported that there were no treatment-related deaths.

In an interview, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, and cochair of the session where the study data was presented, said the “intriguing and meaningful [findings] highlight the fact that not everyone may need chemotherapy.” In the big picture, the results reflect a movement toward “individualized, personalized medicine, and moving away from one size fits all.”

Should clinicians embrace the study’s strategy, and what are the costs?

“There may be a need for additional evaluation in a large phase 3 trial,” Dr. Kalinsky said.

There was no discussion about cost during the ASCO presentation. However, Dr. Kalinsky noted that there will be cost savings if patients don’t need chemotherapy. But he added that insurers in the United States don’t always cover the PET scans that are needed to evaluate whether patients are responding to hormone therapy.

The study is funded by Roche and sponsored by MedSIR. Dr. Cortes has multiple disclosures, including stock/other ownership in Leuko, MedSIR, and Nektar and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung. Dr. Kalinsky has no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Nearly all patients who were diverted from chemotherapy prior to surgery for HER2-positive early breast cancer survived without cancer recurrence for 3 years, according to new findings from a phase 2 trial.

The secondary primary endpoint results from the PHERgain study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, provide more evidence to support a strategy that avoids chemotherapy as long as patients show signs of response to hormone therapy via PET scans. The results revealed that 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 96.3-100.0) of 86 patients who received treatment with trastuzumab and pertuzumab – but no chemotherapy – remained cancer free and alive 3 years after surgery (invasive disease–free survival).

“Only 1 out of 86 patients experience disease recurrence ... in those patients who never received chemotherapy,” said study lead author Javier Cortés, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, during his presentation at the meeting.

As Dr. Cortés noted, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab have improved lifespans in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer, sparking interest in whether chemotherapy can be de-escalated. The PHERgain study examines whether it can be avoided entirely.

The primary endpoint results of the multicenter, open-label, noncomparative study were released in The Lancet Oncology in 2021.
 

Study methods and results

At 45 hospitals in Europe, patients with HER2-positive, stage I-IIIA, invasive, operable breast cancer were randomly assigned between 2017 and 2019 to receive chemotherapy prior to surgery (n = 71, group A) or to only receive hormone therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab, unless PET scans suggested they needed chemotherapy because they weren’t properly responding (n = 285, group B).

At a median follow-up of 5.7 months, 86 patients in the latter group had a pathological complete response and therefore met the first primary endpoint.

The new analysis tracked patients for 3 years after they underwent surgery (n = 63 and 267 for patients in groups A and B, respectively). As previously noted, at a median follow-up of 43.3 months (range, 2.4-63.0 months), only 1 of 86 patients in group B who didn’t receive chemotherapy had a recurrence of cancer (a locoregional ipsilateral recurrence). The 98.8% invasive disease–free survival rate was higher that what was seen for patients in group B as a whole (95.4% invasive disease–free survival, 95% CI, 92.8%-98.0%, P < .001). The 95.4% met the study’s second primary endpoint.

Treatment-related adverse events were higher in the group that received chemotherapy only (group A) versus group B (experiencing an adverse event grade of at least 3, 61.8% vs. 32.9%, respectively, P < .001; serious adverse events, 27.9% vs. 13.8%, respectively; P = .01). Those in group B who didn’t receive any chemotherapy had very few treatment-related adverse events that were considered being greater than a grade 3 (1.2%) and no treatment-related serious adverse events. The researchers reported that there were no treatment-related deaths.

In an interview, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, and cochair of the session where the study data was presented, said the “intriguing and meaningful [findings] highlight the fact that not everyone may need chemotherapy.” In the big picture, the results reflect a movement toward “individualized, personalized medicine, and moving away from one size fits all.”

Should clinicians embrace the study’s strategy, and what are the costs?

“There may be a need for additional evaluation in a large phase 3 trial,” Dr. Kalinsky said.

There was no discussion about cost during the ASCO presentation. However, Dr. Kalinsky noted that there will be cost savings if patients don’t need chemotherapy. But he added that insurers in the United States don’t always cover the PET scans that are needed to evaluate whether patients are responding to hormone therapy.

The study is funded by Roche and sponsored by MedSIR. Dr. Cortes has multiple disclosures, including stock/other ownership in Leuko, MedSIR, and Nektar and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung. Dr. Kalinsky has no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Nearly all patients who were diverted from chemotherapy prior to surgery for HER2-positive early breast cancer survived without cancer recurrence for 3 years, according to new findings from a phase 2 trial.

The secondary primary endpoint results from the PHERgain study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, provide more evidence to support a strategy that avoids chemotherapy as long as patients show signs of response to hormone therapy via PET scans. The results revealed that 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 96.3-100.0) of 86 patients who received treatment with trastuzumab and pertuzumab – but no chemotherapy – remained cancer free and alive 3 years after surgery (invasive disease–free survival).

“Only 1 out of 86 patients experience disease recurrence ... in those patients who never received chemotherapy,” said study lead author Javier Cortés, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, during his presentation at the meeting.

As Dr. Cortés noted, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab have improved lifespans in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer, sparking interest in whether chemotherapy can be de-escalated. The PHERgain study examines whether it can be avoided entirely.

The primary endpoint results of the multicenter, open-label, noncomparative study were released in The Lancet Oncology in 2021.
 

Study methods and results

At 45 hospitals in Europe, patients with HER2-positive, stage I-IIIA, invasive, operable breast cancer were randomly assigned between 2017 and 2019 to receive chemotherapy prior to surgery (n = 71, group A) or to only receive hormone therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab, unless PET scans suggested they needed chemotherapy because they weren’t properly responding (n = 285, group B).

At a median follow-up of 5.7 months, 86 patients in the latter group had a pathological complete response and therefore met the first primary endpoint.

The new analysis tracked patients for 3 years after they underwent surgery (n = 63 and 267 for patients in groups A and B, respectively). As previously noted, at a median follow-up of 43.3 months (range, 2.4-63.0 months), only 1 of 86 patients in group B who didn’t receive chemotherapy had a recurrence of cancer (a locoregional ipsilateral recurrence). The 98.8% invasive disease–free survival rate was higher that what was seen for patients in group B as a whole (95.4% invasive disease–free survival, 95% CI, 92.8%-98.0%, P < .001). The 95.4% met the study’s second primary endpoint.

Treatment-related adverse events were higher in the group that received chemotherapy only (group A) versus group B (experiencing an adverse event grade of at least 3, 61.8% vs. 32.9%, respectively, P < .001; serious adverse events, 27.9% vs. 13.8%, respectively; P = .01). Those in group B who didn’t receive any chemotherapy had very few treatment-related adverse events that were considered being greater than a grade 3 (1.2%) and no treatment-related serious adverse events. The researchers reported that there were no treatment-related deaths.

In an interview, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, and cochair of the session where the study data was presented, said the “intriguing and meaningful [findings] highlight the fact that not everyone may need chemotherapy.” In the big picture, the results reflect a movement toward “individualized, personalized medicine, and moving away from one size fits all.”

Should clinicians embrace the study’s strategy, and what are the costs?

“There may be a need for additional evaluation in a large phase 3 trial,” Dr. Kalinsky said.

There was no discussion about cost during the ASCO presentation. However, Dr. Kalinsky noted that there will be cost savings if patients don’t need chemotherapy. But he added that insurers in the United States don’t always cover the PET scans that are needed to evaluate whether patients are responding to hormone therapy.

The study is funded by Roche and sponsored by MedSIR. Dr. Cortes has multiple disclosures, including stock/other ownership in Leuko, MedSIR, and Nektar and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung. Dr. Kalinsky has no disclosures.

CHICAGO – A new meta-analysis of 25 studies dating back to 1948 provides more evidence linking ovarian suppression/ablation in premenopausal women to less recurrence and more survival in the long term after breast cancer.

Those who didn’t take tamoxifen – a standard treatment today – seemed to gain an especially large benefit.

The randomized studies, which included 14,999 subjects, suggest that ovarian suppression/ablation can provide a “substantial and persistent benefit for premenopausal women,” said study lead author and medical statistician Richard G. Gray, MA, MSc, of the University of Oxford (England), in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study authors sought to better understand the value of ovarian suppression/ablation, which may prevent estrogen from stimulating residual cancer after treatment. According to the study abstract, premenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors may be at special risk of cancer recurrence because of this phenomenon.

Recently published research has supported hormone therapy targeting the ovaries in this population.

“Ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor should become the preferred initial hormone therapy recommendation for all premenopausal women with high-risk (i.e., grade 3, T2, and age less than 35 years) estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer,” declared a 2022 editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that noted the positive findings of a 13-year follow-up analysis of 2 studies.
 

Study methods and results

For the meta-analysis released at ASCO, researchers examined 25 trials that randomized women with breast cancer who were premenopausal. In some cases, the women went through menopause during the trials, and in some other cases, ovarian suppression/ablation brought on early menopause.

Among women who had received no chemotherapy or remained premenopausal after chemotherapy (n = 7,213), cancer recurred within 15 years in 41% of the controls and 28.9% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group, (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.78; P < .00001).

Among these same women, breast cancer mortality at 20 years was 34.7% in the controls and 23.8% in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .00001).

The researchers also looked at the same group of women and divided it into those who didn’t take tamoxifen (2,362) and those who did take tamoxifen (4,851). The drug is now the preferred option “for treatment of breast cancer.”

Among those who did not take tamoxifen, the recurrence rate at 15 years was 56.5% among controls versus 39.0% among those in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72; P < .00001). The gap shrunk in those who did take tamoxifen: recurrence occurred in 30.3% of the control group and 25.8% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .002).
 

Tamoxifen on its own seems to have powerful positive effect

The findings suggest that tamoxifen on its own has a powerful positive effect, leaving less extra benefit for ovarian suppression/ablation to provide, said Mr. Gray.

The meta-analysis didn’t examine cost or cost-effectiveness.

Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, cochair of the session where the meta-analysis data was presented, said in an interview that the new research shows that “patients can really benefit from ovarian function suppression.” Even so, recent trials suggested that the strategy is uncommon, used by less than 20% of high-risk patients.

Dr. Kalinsky noted that suppressing the ovaries with medication or removing the ovaries entirely can cause early menopause and eliminate fertility.

“There can be definitely be side effects like hot flashes and tolerability issues,” he said, “along with an impact on quality of life.”

According to the U.K. organization Breast Cancer Now,“ovarian suppression achieved by hormone therapy or surgery is more likely to cause menopausal symptoms than a natural menopause.” In addition, “research has shown that younger women are more likely to stop taking hormone therapy early if they don’t get help with possible side effects.”

It’s important for patients and providers to have full discussions about possible strategies, Dr. Kalinsky said.

No information about study funding was provided. Dr. Kalinsky and Mr. Gray had no financial conflicts.

CHICAGO – A new meta-analysis of 25 studies dating back to 1948 provides more evidence linking ovarian suppression/ablation in premenopausal women to less recurrence and more survival in the long term after breast cancer.

Those who didn’t take tamoxifen – a standard treatment today – seemed to gain an especially large benefit.

The randomized studies, which included 14,999 subjects, suggest that ovarian suppression/ablation can provide a “substantial and persistent benefit for premenopausal women,” said study lead author and medical statistician Richard G. Gray, MA, MSc, of the University of Oxford (England), in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study authors sought to better understand the value of ovarian suppression/ablation, which may prevent estrogen from stimulating residual cancer after treatment. According to the study abstract, premenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors may be at special risk of cancer recurrence because of this phenomenon.

Recently published research has supported hormone therapy targeting the ovaries in this population.

“Ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor should become the preferred initial hormone therapy recommendation for all premenopausal women with high-risk (i.e., grade 3, T2, and age less than 35 years) estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer,” declared a 2022 editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that noted the positive findings of a 13-year follow-up analysis of 2 studies.
 

Study methods and results

For the meta-analysis released at ASCO, researchers examined 25 trials that randomized women with breast cancer who were premenopausal. In some cases, the women went through menopause during the trials, and in some other cases, ovarian suppression/ablation brought on early menopause.

Among women who had received no chemotherapy or remained premenopausal after chemotherapy (n = 7,213), cancer recurred within 15 years in 41% of the controls and 28.9% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group, (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.78; P < .00001).

Among these same women, breast cancer mortality at 20 years was 34.7% in the controls and 23.8% in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .00001).

The researchers also looked at the same group of women and divided it into those who didn’t take tamoxifen (2,362) and those who did take tamoxifen (4,851). The drug is now the preferred option “for treatment of breast cancer.”

Among those who did not take tamoxifen, the recurrence rate at 15 years was 56.5% among controls versus 39.0% among those in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72; P < .00001). The gap shrunk in those who did take tamoxifen: recurrence occurred in 30.3% of the control group and 25.8% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .002).
 

Tamoxifen on its own seems to have powerful positive effect

The findings suggest that tamoxifen on its own has a powerful positive effect, leaving less extra benefit for ovarian suppression/ablation to provide, said Mr. Gray.

The meta-analysis didn’t examine cost or cost-effectiveness.

Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, cochair of the session where the meta-analysis data was presented, said in an interview that the new research shows that “patients can really benefit from ovarian function suppression.” Even so, recent trials suggested that the strategy is uncommon, used by less than 20% of high-risk patients.

Dr. Kalinsky noted that suppressing the ovaries with medication or removing the ovaries entirely can cause early menopause and eliminate fertility.

“There can be definitely be side effects like hot flashes and tolerability issues,” he said, “along with an impact on quality of life.”

According to the U.K. organization Breast Cancer Now,“ovarian suppression achieved by hormone therapy or surgery is more likely to cause menopausal symptoms than a natural menopause.” In addition, “research has shown that younger women are more likely to stop taking hormone therapy early if they don’t get help with possible side effects.”

It’s important for patients and providers to have full discussions about possible strategies, Dr. Kalinsky said.

No information about study funding was provided. Dr. Kalinsky and Mr. Gray had no financial conflicts.

CHICAGO – A new meta-analysis of 25 studies dating back to 1948 provides more evidence linking ovarian suppression/ablation in premenopausal women to less recurrence and more survival in the long term after breast cancer.

Those who didn’t take tamoxifen – a standard treatment today – seemed to gain an especially large benefit.

The randomized studies, which included 14,999 subjects, suggest that ovarian suppression/ablation can provide a “substantial and persistent benefit for premenopausal women,” said study lead author and medical statistician Richard G. Gray, MA, MSc, of the University of Oxford (England), in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study authors sought to better understand the value of ovarian suppression/ablation, which may prevent estrogen from stimulating residual cancer after treatment. According to the study abstract, premenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors may be at special risk of cancer recurrence because of this phenomenon.

Recently published research has supported hormone therapy targeting the ovaries in this population.

“Ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor should become the preferred initial hormone therapy recommendation for all premenopausal women with high-risk (i.e., grade 3, T2, and age less than 35 years) estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer,” declared a 2022 editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that noted the positive findings of a 13-year follow-up analysis of 2 studies.
 

Study methods and results

For the meta-analysis released at ASCO, researchers examined 25 trials that randomized women with breast cancer who were premenopausal. In some cases, the women went through menopause during the trials, and in some other cases, ovarian suppression/ablation brought on early menopause.

Among women who had received no chemotherapy or remained premenopausal after chemotherapy (n = 7,213), cancer recurred within 15 years in 41% of the controls and 28.9% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group, (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.78; P < .00001).

Among these same women, breast cancer mortality at 20 years was 34.7% in the controls and 23.8% in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .00001).

The researchers also looked at the same group of women and divided it into those who didn’t take tamoxifen (2,362) and those who did take tamoxifen (4,851). The drug is now the preferred option “for treatment of breast cancer.”

Among those who did not take tamoxifen, the recurrence rate at 15 years was 56.5% among controls versus 39.0% among those in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72; P < .00001). The gap shrunk in those who did take tamoxifen: recurrence occurred in 30.3% of the control group and 25.8% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .002).
 

Tamoxifen on its own seems to have powerful positive effect

The findings suggest that tamoxifen on its own has a powerful positive effect, leaving less extra benefit for ovarian suppression/ablation to provide, said Mr. Gray.

The meta-analysis didn’t examine cost or cost-effectiveness.

Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, cochair of the session where the meta-analysis data was presented, said in an interview that the new research shows that “patients can really benefit from ovarian function suppression.” Even so, recent trials suggested that the strategy is uncommon, used by less than 20% of high-risk patients.

Dr. Kalinsky noted that suppressing the ovaries with medication or removing the ovaries entirely can cause early menopause and eliminate fertility.

“There can be definitely be side effects like hot flashes and tolerability issues,” he said, “along with an impact on quality of life.”

According to the U.K. organization Breast Cancer Now,“ovarian suppression achieved by hormone therapy or surgery is more likely to cause menopausal symptoms than a natural menopause.” In addition, “research has shown that younger women are more likely to stop taking hormone therapy early if they don’t get help with possible side effects.”

It’s important for patients and providers to have full discussions about possible strategies, Dr. Kalinsky said.

No information about study funding was provided. Dr. Kalinsky and Mr. Gray had no financial conflicts.

CHICAGO – In a phase 1 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) trial, a bispecific antibody that targets T cells and the inhibitory notch ligand known as delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) showed a good safety profile and encouraging signs of efficacy, including one response that lasted more than a year.

The antibody promotes the destruction of tumor cells by T cells by acting as a bridge between T cells and tumors.

SCLC has largely resisted efforts to identify unique surface markers. DLL3 is an exception: It is rarely expressed in normal cells, and it seems to be important to tumor biology, according to Martin Wermke, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
 

A rare SCLC biomarker

“The problem, I think, is that small cell [lung cancer] with its high mutational burden is a bunch of many different subentities and you will probably not find a single driver mutation as you do in non–small cell lung cancer. So in that [way] it’s different in its biology,” said Dr. Wermke, professor of experimental tumor therapy at the National Center for Tumor Diseases in Dresden, Germany.

Nevertheless, DLL3 is a sensitive biomarker, with over 90% of SCLC tumors positive for the surface marker, according to Dr. Wermke. “It’s one of the first which proved to be a reliable [SCLC] biomarker for therapeutic approaches,” said Dr. Wermke.

This isn’t the first clinical experience with DLL3. An anti-DLL3 antibody was used as part of an antibody-drug conjugate called Rova-T, which failed a phase 3 trial in SCLC in 2021 and was subsequently canceled by AbbVie, but Dr. Wermke believes that the issue was with the drug and linker (a chemical tag that links the cytotoxic drug to the antibody, which is designed to release the drug in an appropriate environment such as the interior of a tumor cell after an antibody-drug conjugate has been internalized by the tumor cell), not DLL3. DLL3 is also being investigated as a component of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, though no clinical results have been reported, Dr. Wermke said.
 

Study methods and results

The study included 107 patients. The median age was 60.0 years, and 57% were male. To be included, patients had to have advanced SCLC, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, or extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma, as well as test positive for DLL3 expression.

The drug was well tolerated: 86% of patients experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event: 59% with a grade 1-2 TRAE and 27% with a grade 3-5 TRAE. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 59% of patients, but just 2% were grade 3-5. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 4% of patients. Physicians were able to manage CRS with supportive care, steroids, and anti–interleukin-6 receptor antibodies.

The treatment showed signs of efficacy, with partial responses occurring in 18% of patients, stable disease in 23%, progressive disease in 45%, while 13% were not evaluable.

At doses of 90 mg/kg or above, partial response occurred in 25% of patients, stable disease in 27%, and progressive disease in 31%, while 13% were not evaluable. Similar patterns were seen across three tumor types.

Of 18 responders, 14 continued to be responders at the time of the presentation. The longest response lengths were 13.1 months, 10.7 months, and 9.4 months.

Dr. Wermke said that the responses were encouraging, particularly the duration of some responses.

“Having a small cell [lung cancer] patient responding to something for more than a year is extraordinary. It comes with side effects, which are usually seen during the first [doses]. After that, the drug is pretty well tolerable, and that is also something which distinguishes it from alternative second-line approaches,” he said.
 

Well tolerated, but take efficacy data with a grain of salt

The study was encouraging but should be treated with caution, according to Vamsidhar Velcheti, MD, who moderated the session where the research was presented.

“The toxicity profile is actually very promising and it’s still very early, but there’s certainly a lot of interest in DLL3-targeted [therapies]. We’ve seen some very exciting data with other assets in this category as well,” said Dr. Velcheti, director of thoracic oncology at NYU Langone Health, New York.

Phase 1 efficacy data can be tantalizing but often fails to hold up to further testing, according to Dr. Velcheti. “We’ve seen signals in phase 1 data before, and we’ve been burned. We saw really promising data with Rova-T, and the confirmatory trials were negative, – so we want to be cautiously optimistic,” said Dr. Velcheti.

He also pointed out that patient selection will be important for such studies, considering that SCLC patients often have a lot of comorbidities and the therapy’s potential for causing CRS.

Both Dr. Wermke and Dr. Velcheti have received funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wermke has consulted with or advised with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ImCheck Therapeutics, Immatics, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, and Novartis.

CHICAGO – In a phase 1 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) trial, a bispecific antibody that targets T cells and the inhibitory notch ligand known as delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) showed a good safety profile and encouraging signs of efficacy, including one response that lasted more than a year.

The antibody promotes the destruction of tumor cells by T cells by acting as a bridge between T cells and tumors.

SCLC has largely resisted efforts to identify unique surface markers. DLL3 is an exception: It is rarely expressed in normal cells, and it seems to be important to tumor biology, according to Martin Wermke, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
 

A rare SCLC biomarker

“The problem, I think, is that small cell [lung cancer] with its high mutational burden is a bunch of many different subentities and you will probably not find a single driver mutation as you do in non–small cell lung cancer. So in that [way] it’s different in its biology,” said Dr. Wermke, professor of experimental tumor therapy at the National Center for Tumor Diseases in Dresden, Germany.

Nevertheless, DLL3 is a sensitive biomarker, with over 90% of SCLC tumors positive for the surface marker, according to Dr. Wermke. “It’s one of the first which proved to be a reliable [SCLC] biomarker for therapeutic approaches,” said Dr. Wermke.

This isn’t the first clinical experience with DLL3. An anti-DLL3 antibody was used as part of an antibody-drug conjugate called Rova-T, which failed a phase 3 trial in SCLC in 2021 and was subsequently canceled by AbbVie, but Dr. Wermke believes that the issue was with the drug and linker (a chemical tag that links the cytotoxic drug to the antibody, which is designed to release the drug in an appropriate environment such as the interior of a tumor cell after an antibody-drug conjugate has been internalized by the tumor cell), not DLL3. DLL3 is also being investigated as a component of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, though no clinical results have been reported, Dr. Wermke said.
 

Study methods and results

The study included 107 patients. The median age was 60.0 years, and 57% were male. To be included, patients had to have advanced SCLC, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, or extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma, as well as test positive for DLL3 expression.

The drug was well tolerated: 86% of patients experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event: 59% with a grade 1-2 TRAE and 27% with a grade 3-5 TRAE. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 59% of patients, but just 2% were grade 3-5. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 4% of patients. Physicians were able to manage CRS with supportive care, steroids, and anti–interleukin-6 receptor antibodies.

The treatment showed signs of efficacy, with partial responses occurring in 18% of patients, stable disease in 23%, progressive disease in 45%, while 13% were not evaluable.

At doses of 90 mg/kg or above, partial response occurred in 25% of patients, stable disease in 27%, and progressive disease in 31%, while 13% were not evaluable. Similar patterns were seen across three tumor types.

Of 18 responders, 14 continued to be responders at the time of the presentation. The longest response lengths were 13.1 months, 10.7 months, and 9.4 months.

Dr. Wermke said that the responses were encouraging, particularly the duration of some responses.

“Having a small cell [lung cancer] patient responding to something for more than a year is extraordinary. It comes with side effects, which are usually seen during the first [doses]. After that, the drug is pretty well tolerable, and that is also something which distinguishes it from alternative second-line approaches,” he said.
 

Well tolerated, but take efficacy data with a grain of salt

The study was encouraging but should be treated with caution, according to Vamsidhar Velcheti, MD, who moderated the session where the research was presented.

“The toxicity profile is actually very promising and it’s still very early, but there’s certainly a lot of interest in DLL3-targeted [therapies]. We’ve seen some very exciting data with other assets in this category as well,” said Dr. Velcheti, director of thoracic oncology at NYU Langone Health, New York.

Phase 1 efficacy data can be tantalizing but often fails to hold up to further testing, according to Dr. Velcheti. “We’ve seen signals in phase 1 data before, and we’ve been burned. We saw really promising data with Rova-T, and the confirmatory trials were negative, – so we want to be cautiously optimistic,” said Dr. Velcheti.

He also pointed out that patient selection will be important for such studies, considering that SCLC patients often have a lot of comorbidities and the therapy’s potential for causing CRS.

Both Dr. Wermke and Dr. Velcheti have received funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wermke has consulted with or advised with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ImCheck Therapeutics, Immatics, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, and Novartis.

CHICAGO – In a phase 1 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) trial, a bispecific antibody that targets T cells and the inhibitory notch ligand known as delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) showed a good safety profile and encouraging signs of efficacy, including one response that lasted more than a year.

The antibody promotes the destruction of tumor cells by T cells by acting as a bridge between T cells and tumors.

SCLC has largely resisted efforts to identify unique surface markers. DLL3 is an exception: It is rarely expressed in normal cells, and it seems to be important to tumor biology, according to Martin Wermke, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
 

A rare SCLC biomarker

“The problem, I think, is that small cell [lung cancer] with its high mutational burden is a bunch of many different subentities and you will probably not find a single driver mutation as you do in non–small cell lung cancer. So in that [way] it’s different in its biology,” said Dr. Wermke, professor of experimental tumor therapy at the National Center for Tumor Diseases in Dresden, Germany.

Nevertheless, DLL3 is a sensitive biomarker, with over 90% of SCLC tumors positive for the surface marker, according to Dr. Wermke. “It’s one of the first which proved to be a reliable [SCLC] biomarker for therapeutic approaches,” said Dr. Wermke.

This isn’t the first clinical experience with DLL3. An anti-DLL3 antibody was used as part of an antibody-drug conjugate called Rova-T, which failed a phase 3 trial in SCLC in 2021 and was subsequently canceled by AbbVie, but Dr. Wermke believes that the issue was with the drug and linker (a chemical tag that links the cytotoxic drug to the antibody, which is designed to release the drug in an appropriate environment such as the interior of a tumor cell after an antibody-drug conjugate has been internalized by the tumor cell), not DLL3. DLL3 is also being investigated as a component of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, though no clinical results have been reported, Dr. Wermke said.
 

Study methods and results

The study included 107 patients. The median age was 60.0 years, and 57% were male. To be included, patients had to have advanced SCLC, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, or extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma, as well as test positive for DLL3 expression.

The drug was well tolerated: 86% of patients experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event: 59% with a grade 1-2 TRAE and 27% with a grade 3-5 TRAE. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 59% of patients, but just 2% were grade 3-5. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 4% of patients. Physicians were able to manage CRS with supportive care, steroids, and anti–interleukin-6 receptor antibodies.

The treatment showed signs of efficacy, with partial responses occurring in 18% of patients, stable disease in 23%, progressive disease in 45%, while 13% were not evaluable.

At doses of 90 mg/kg or above, partial response occurred in 25% of patients, stable disease in 27%, and progressive disease in 31%, while 13% were not evaluable. Similar patterns were seen across three tumor types.

Of 18 responders, 14 continued to be responders at the time of the presentation. The longest response lengths were 13.1 months, 10.7 months, and 9.4 months.

Dr. Wermke said that the responses were encouraging, particularly the duration of some responses.

“Having a small cell [lung cancer] patient responding to something for more than a year is extraordinary. It comes with side effects, which are usually seen during the first [doses]. After that, the drug is pretty well tolerable, and that is also something which distinguishes it from alternative second-line approaches,” he said.
 

Well tolerated, but take efficacy data with a grain of salt

The study was encouraging but should be treated with caution, according to Vamsidhar Velcheti, MD, who moderated the session where the research was presented.

“The toxicity profile is actually very promising and it’s still very early, but there’s certainly a lot of interest in DLL3-targeted [therapies]. We’ve seen some very exciting data with other assets in this category as well,” said Dr. Velcheti, director of thoracic oncology at NYU Langone Health, New York.

Phase 1 efficacy data can be tantalizing but often fails to hold up to further testing, according to Dr. Velcheti. “We’ve seen signals in phase 1 data before, and we’ve been burned. We saw really promising data with Rova-T, and the confirmatory trials were negative, – so we want to be cautiously optimistic,” said Dr. Velcheti.

He also pointed out that patient selection will be important for such studies, considering that SCLC patients often have a lot of comorbidities and the therapy’s potential for causing CRS.

Both Dr. Wermke and Dr. Velcheti have received funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wermke has consulted with or advised with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ImCheck Therapeutics, Immatics, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, and Novartis.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Across patients’ age groups, adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma while also reducing toxicities, making it a new standard of care, compared with the CD30-targeting drug brentuximab vedotin.

“[SWOG] S1826, the largest Hodgkin lymphoma study in National Clinical Trials Network history, is a key step toward harmonizing the pediatric and adult treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma,” the authors reported in late-breaking research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Based on the magnitude of the benefit and with nivolumab being better tolerated than brentuximab, we anticipate that these results will be practice changing and nivolumab [and chemotherapy] will become a new standard of care,” lead author Alex Francisco Herrera, MD, an associate professor and chief of the division of lymphoma in the department of hematology and hematopoietic cell transplantation, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

The randomized SWOG S1826 trial of 976 patients with newly diagnosed stage 3 or 4 Hodgkin lymphoma included patients ranging in age from as young as 12 to 83 years, and at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the addition of nivolumab to the chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) was associated with as much as a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death, compared with the addition of brentuximab.

The results are especially important considering that Hodgkin lymphoma disproportionately affects younger patients, including those in their teens, 20s, and 30s, Dr. Herrera noted in an interview.

“We found that treatment with nivolumab reduced the risk of progression by half, and, importantly, the benefit was observed across subgroups,” he said.
 

Relapse/refractory disease common in advanced HL

In general, outcomes are relatively good even for stage III or IV Hodgkin lymphoma; however, about a quarter of patients still have relapses or refractory disease.

While the introduction of novel frontline treatment with brentuximab-AVD was important in improving overall survival, the regimen adds toxicity, particularly among older patients, and many pediatric patients receiving the therapy still require radiation therapy, with its undesirable side effects.

Meanwhile, the progressive death 1 inhibitor nivolumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration, gained interest as a potentially ideal alternative in light of Hodgkin lymphoma’s status basically as “the poster child for PD-1 blockade,” Dr. Herrera said.

“There are genetic changes in the Hodgkin lymphoma tumor cell that lead to expression of PD-1 ligands on the surface of Hodgkin lymphoma cells, and when we use a drug like nivolumab, we see that even patients with the most treatment-resistant rates of lymphoma have as much as a 70% response rate,” he explained in a press briefing.

To further investigate, the first-of-its-kind collaboration of adult and pediatric cancer teams conducted the S1826 trial to evaluate the treatment across age groups with stage 3 and 4 Hodgkin lymphoma.

For the study, conducted between July 2019 and October 2022, 976 patients were randomized to treatment either with nivolumab (n = 489) or brentuximab (n = 487), each in combination with the AVD regimen.

Of the patients, the median age was 27, with 24% under the age of 18, 10% over 60 and 32% with IPS 4-7. Among them, 56% were male and 76% were White.

For the primary endpoint, at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the nivolumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.48; one-sided P = .0005), with the rate of 1-year survival at 94% in the nivolumab group versus 86% in the brentuximab group, for a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death with nivolumab versus brentuximab.

A total of 11 deaths occurred in the brentuximab group, 7 of which were related to adverse events, compared with 4 deaths in the nivolumab group, 3 of which were related to nivolumab.

Importantly, fewer than 1% of patients with nivolumab required radiation therapy.

“That’s a dramatic reduction of the proportion of the very youngest patients receiving radiotherapy,” Dr. Herrera noted.

Grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were higher in the nivolumab group, at 48.4%, including 45.1% that were grade 3 or higher neutropenia, compared with 30.5% with brentuximab, including 23.9% with grade 3 or higher neutropenia.

However, rates of any grade of febrile neutropenia were similar with nivolumab and brentuximab (5.6% vs. 6.4%, respectively), as were rates of pneumonitis (2.0% vs. 3.2%), ALT elevation (30.7% vs. 39.8%), and colitis (1% vs. 1.3%).

In addition, rates of hypo- and hyperthyroidism were more frequent after nivolumab (7% and 3% with nivolumab, respectively, vs. fewer than 1% with brentuximab).

But, of note, peripheral neuropathy of any grade was more common after brentuximab (sensory: 28.1% nivolumab vs. 54.2% brentuximab; motor: 4% nivolumab vs. 6.8% brentuximab).

“I can’t emphasize how important neuropathy is as a side effect in these young patients who have the rest of their life ahead of them,” Dr. Herrera explained. “It’s fantastic to be cured of cancer, but tough to not be able to feel your fingers and toes.”

With its broad inclusion of age groups and a diverse population, he added that the study was importantly a “representative” trial, reflecting a “real-world population.”

“Incredibly, a quarter of patients were under the age of 18; 10% were over the age of 60, a quarter of patients were Hispanic and Black, and in fact we had a quite good representation of higher-risk subgroups,” he said.

Looking forward, longer-term follow-up from this study will be important in determining if the improvement observed in disease-related deaths is maintained over time, Dr. Herrera noted.

“Additionally, it is crucial to obtain data on other key outcomes such as overall survival and quality of life from longer-term follow of this study,” he said.
 

‘A huge step forward’

Commenting on the study, Oreofe Odejide, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said that results were unprecedented.

“Although a majority of patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma will be cured with initial therapy, about 20% of patients still end up with relapsed or refractory disease,” she said in an interview. “Therefore, the findings from this study represent a huge step forward in the management of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adults, leading to an improved and well-tolerated standard of care.”

Dr. Odejide agreed that the findings are potentially practice changing.

“Brentuximab-AVD set a high bar for the treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma, as it was the first regimen to show a meaningful improvement in disease-related death compared to ABVD chemotherapy in several years,” she explained.

“The fact that the SWOG1826 trial now shows a significant benefit of nivolumab-AVD over brentuximab and included both pediatric and adult patients unlike prior studies, is highly compelling,” Dr. Odejide added. “This has strong potential to change the standard of care for patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma.”

The study received funding from the National Cancer Institute and from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herrera reported relationships with Abbvie, ADC Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seagen, Takeda, and Tubulis Gmbh. Dr. Odejide reported no disclosures.

Across patients’ age groups, adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma while also reducing toxicities, making it a new standard of care, compared with the CD30-targeting drug brentuximab vedotin.

“[SWOG] S1826, the largest Hodgkin lymphoma study in National Clinical Trials Network history, is a key step toward harmonizing the pediatric and adult treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma,” the authors reported in late-breaking research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Based on the magnitude of the benefit and with nivolumab being better tolerated than brentuximab, we anticipate that these results will be practice changing and nivolumab [and chemotherapy] will become a new standard of care,” lead author Alex Francisco Herrera, MD, an associate professor and chief of the division of lymphoma in the department of hematology and hematopoietic cell transplantation, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

The randomized SWOG S1826 trial of 976 patients with newly diagnosed stage 3 or 4 Hodgkin lymphoma included patients ranging in age from as young as 12 to 83 years, and at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the addition of nivolumab to the chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) was associated with as much as a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death, compared with the addition of brentuximab.

The results are especially important considering that Hodgkin lymphoma disproportionately affects younger patients, including those in their teens, 20s, and 30s, Dr. Herrera noted in an interview.

“We found that treatment with nivolumab reduced the risk of progression by half, and, importantly, the benefit was observed across subgroups,” he said.
 

Relapse/refractory disease common in advanced HL

In general, outcomes are relatively good even for stage III or IV Hodgkin lymphoma; however, about a quarter of patients still have relapses or refractory disease.

While the introduction of novel frontline treatment with brentuximab-AVD was important in improving overall survival, the regimen adds toxicity, particularly among older patients, and many pediatric patients receiving the therapy still require radiation therapy, with its undesirable side effects.

Meanwhile, the progressive death 1 inhibitor nivolumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration, gained interest as a potentially ideal alternative in light of Hodgkin lymphoma’s status basically as “the poster child for PD-1 blockade,” Dr. Herrera said.

“There are genetic changes in the Hodgkin lymphoma tumor cell that lead to expression of PD-1 ligands on the surface of Hodgkin lymphoma cells, and when we use a drug like nivolumab, we see that even patients with the most treatment-resistant rates of lymphoma have as much as a 70% response rate,” he explained in a press briefing.

To further investigate, the first-of-its-kind collaboration of adult and pediatric cancer teams conducted the S1826 trial to evaluate the treatment across age groups with stage 3 and 4 Hodgkin lymphoma.

For the study, conducted between July 2019 and October 2022, 976 patients were randomized to treatment either with nivolumab (n = 489) or brentuximab (n = 487), each in combination with the AVD regimen.

Of the patients, the median age was 27, with 24% under the age of 18, 10% over 60 and 32% with IPS 4-7. Among them, 56% were male and 76% were White.

For the primary endpoint, at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the nivolumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.48; one-sided P = .0005), with the rate of 1-year survival at 94% in the nivolumab group versus 86% in the brentuximab group, for a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death with nivolumab versus brentuximab.

A total of 11 deaths occurred in the brentuximab group, 7 of which were related to adverse events, compared with 4 deaths in the nivolumab group, 3 of which were related to nivolumab.

Importantly, fewer than 1% of patients with nivolumab required radiation therapy.

“That’s a dramatic reduction of the proportion of the very youngest patients receiving radiotherapy,” Dr. Herrera noted.

Grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were higher in the nivolumab group, at 48.4%, including 45.1% that were grade 3 or higher neutropenia, compared with 30.5% with brentuximab, including 23.9% with grade 3 or higher neutropenia.

However, rates of any grade of febrile neutropenia were similar with nivolumab and brentuximab (5.6% vs. 6.4%, respectively), as were rates of pneumonitis (2.0% vs. 3.2%), ALT elevation (30.7% vs. 39.8%), and colitis (1% vs. 1.3%).

In addition, rates of hypo- and hyperthyroidism were more frequent after nivolumab (7% and 3% with nivolumab, respectively, vs. fewer than 1% with brentuximab).

But, of note, peripheral neuropathy of any grade was more common after brentuximab (sensory: 28.1% nivolumab vs. 54.2% brentuximab; motor: 4% nivolumab vs. 6.8% brentuximab).

“I can’t emphasize how important neuropathy is as a side effect in these young patients who have the rest of their life ahead of them,” Dr. Herrera explained. “It’s fantastic to be cured of cancer, but tough to not be able to feel your fingers and toes.”

With its broad inclusion of age groups and a diverse population, he added that the study was importantly a “representative” trial, reflecting a “real-world population.”

“Incredibly, a quarter of patients were under the age of 18; 10% were over the age of 60, a quarter of patients were Hispanic and Black, and in fact we had a quite good representation of higher-risk subgroups,” he said.

Looking forward, longer-term follow-up from this study will be important in determining if the improvement observed in disease-related deaths is maintained over time, Dr. Herrera noted.

“Additionally, it is crucial to obtain data on other key outcomes such as overall survival and quality of life from longer-term follow of this study,” he said.
 

‘A huge step forward’

Commenting on the study, Oreofe Odejide, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said that results were unprecedented.

“Although a majority of patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma will be cured with initial therapy, about 20% of patients still end up with relapsed or refractory disease,” she said in an interview. “Therefore, the findings from this study represent a huge step forward in the management of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adults, leading to an improved and well-tolerated standard of care.”

Dr. Odejide agreed that the findings are potentially practice changing.

“Brentuximab-AVD set a high bar for the treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma, as it was the first regimen to show a meaningful improvement in disease-related death compared to ABVD chemotherapy in several years,” she explained.

“The fact that the SWOG1826 trial now shows a significant benefit of nivolumab-AVD over brentuximab and included both pediatric and adult patients unlike prior studies, is highly compelling,” Dr. Odejide added. “This has strong potential to change the standard of care for patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma.”

The study received funding from the National Cancer Institute and from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herrera reported relationships with Abbvie, ADC Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seagen, Takeda, and Tubulis Gmbh. Dr. Odejide reported no disclosures.

Across patients’ age groups, adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma while also reducing toxicities, making it a new standard of care, compared with the CD30-targeting drug brentuximab vedotin.

“[SWOG] S1826, the largest Hodgkin lymphoma study in National Clinical Trials Network history, is a key step toward harmonizing the pediatric and adult treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma,” the authors reported in late-breaking research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Based on the magnitude of the benefit and with nivolumab being better tolerated than brentuximab, we anticipate that these results will be practice changing and nivolumab [and chemotherapy] will become a new standard of care,” lead author Alex Francisco Herrera, MD, an associate professor and chief of the division of lymphoma in the department of hematology and hematopoietic cell transplantation, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

The randomized SWOG S1826 trial of 976 patients with newly diagnosed stage 3 or 4 Hodgkin lymphoma included patients ranging in age from as young as 12 to 83 years, and at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the addition of nivolumab to the chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) was associated with as much as a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death, compared with the addition of brentuximab.

The results are especially important considering that Hodgkin lymphoma disproportionately affects younger patients, including those in their teens, 20s, and 30s, Dr. Herrera noted in an interview.

“We found that treatment with nivolumab reduced the risk of progression by half, and, importantly, the benefit was observed across subgroups,” he said.
 

Relapse/refractory disease common in advanced HL

In general, outcomes are relatively good even for stage III or IV Hodgkin lymphoma; however, about a quarter of patients still have relapses or refractory disease.

While the introduction of novel frontline treatment with brentuximab-AVD was important in improving overall survival, the regimen adds toxicity, particularly among older patients, and many pediatric patients receiving the therapy still require radiation therapy, with its undesirable side effects.

Meanwhile, the progressive death 1 inhibitor nivolumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration, gained interest as a potentially ideal alternative in light of Hodgkin lymphoma’s status basically as “the poster child for PD-1 blockade,” Dr. Herrera said.

“There are genetic changes in the Hodgkin lymphoma tumor cell that lead to expression of PD-1 ligands on the surface of Hodgkin lymphoma cells, and when we use a drug like nivolumab, we see that even patients with the most treatment-resistant rates of lymphoma have as much as a 70% response rate,” he explained in a press briefing.

To further investigate, the first-of-its-kind collaboration of adult and pediatric cancer teams conducted the S1826 trial to evaluate the treatment across age groups with stage 3 and 4 Hodgkin lymphoma.

For the study, conducted between July 2019 and October 2022, 976 patients were randomized to treatment either with nivolumab (n = 489) or brentuximab (n = 487), each in combination with the AVD regimen.

Of the patients, the median age was 27, with 24% under the age of 18, 10% over 60 and 32% with IPS 4-7. Among them, 56% were male and 76% were White.

For the primary endpoint, at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the nivolumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.48; one-sided P = .0005), with the rate of 1-year survival at 94% in the nivolumab group versus 86% in the brentuximab group, for a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death with nivolumab versus brentuximab.

A total of 11 deaths occurred in the brentuximab group, 7 of which were related to adverse events, compared with 4 deaths in the nivolumab group, 3 of which were related to nivolumab.

Importantly, fewer than 1% of patients with nivolumab required radiation therapy.

“That’s a dramatic reduction of the proportion of the very youngest patients receiving radiotherapy,” Dr. Herrera noted.

Grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were higher in the nivolumab group, at 48.4%, including 45.1% that were grade 3 or higher neutropenia, compared with 30.5% with brentuximab, including 23.9% with grade 3 or higher neutropenia.

However, rates of any grade of febrile neutropenia were similar with nivolumab and brentuximab (5.6% vs. 6.4%, respectively), as were rates of pneumonitis (2.0% vs. 3.2%), ALT elevation (30.7% vs. 39.8%), and colitis (1% vs. 1.3%).

In addition, rates of hypo- and hyperthyroidism were more frequent after nivolumab (7% and 3% with nivolumab, respectively, vs. fewer than 1% with brentuximab).

But, of note, peripheral neuropathy of any grade was more common after brentuximab (sensory: 28.1% nivolumab vs. 54.2% brentuximab; motor: 4% nivolumab vs. 6.8% brentuximab).

“I can’t emphasize how important neuropathy is as a side effect in these young patients who have the rest of their life ahead of them,” Dr. Herrera explained. “It’s fantastic to be cured of cancer, but tough to not be able to feel your fingers and toes.”

With its broad inclusion of age groups and a diverse population, he added that the study was importantly a “representative” trial, reflecting a “real-world population.”

“Incredibly, a quarter of patients were under the age of 18; 10% were over the age of 60, a quarter of patients were Hispanic and Black, and in fact we had a quite good representation of higher-risk subgroups,” he said.

Looking forward, longer-term follow-up from this study will be important in determining if the improvement observed in disease-related deaths is maintained over time, Dr. Herrera noted.

“Additionally, it is crucial to obtain data on other key outcomes such as overall survival and quality of life from longer-term follow of this study,” he said.
 

‘A huge step forward’

Commenting on the study, Oreofe Odejide, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said that results were unprecedented.

“Although a majority of patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma will be cured with initial therapy, about 20% of patients still end up with relapsed or refractory disease,” she said in an interview. “Therefore, the findings from this study represent a huge step forward in the management of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adults, leading to an improved and well-tolerated standard of care.”

Dr. Odejide agreed that the findings are potentially practice changing.

“Brentuximab-AVD set a high bar for the treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma, as it was the first regimen to show a meaningful improvement in disease-related death compared to ABVD chemotherapy in several years,” she explained.

“The fact that the SWOG1826 trial now shows a significant benefit of nivolumab-AVD over brentuximab and included both pediatric and adult patients unlike prior studies, is highly compelling,” Dr. Odejide added. “This has strong potential to change the standard of care for patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma.”

The study received funding from the National Cancer Institute and from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herrera reported relationships with Abbvie, ADC Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seagen, Takeda, and Tubulis Gmbh. Dr. Odejide reported no disclosures.

Patients with resectable, early-stage pancreatic cancer can safely undergo minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) as an alternative to traditional open surgery, suggest results from the international DIPLOMA study.

In the trial, around 260 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either open surgery or minimally invasive laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery. Rates of complete tumor removal were comparable between the groups.

In addition, the disease-free and overall survival rates at 3 years were nearly identical.

“For pancreatic cancer, we have proven for the first time that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is as good as open surgery,” commented principal investigator Mohammad Abu Hilal, MD, PhD, surgical director at the Instituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza in Brescia, Italy.

“Our research provides reassurance for surgeons and can help patients by giving them the information they need to have a conversation with their doctor about how they want to be treated,” he added.

Dr. Hilal was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study will be presented (abstract 4163) on June 5.

The study was not able to show that there was a benefit in terms of shorter hospital stays or greater functional recovery with the minimally invasive approach, Dr. Hilal noted, but he suggested that this could be because of differences in postoperative procedures between the participating centers.

He said in an interview that minimally invasive surgery is becoming “very common all over the world,” particularly in the United States, and that randomized controlled trials are “always the last step” in convincing people to use the technique.

He also emphasized that the “best results are obtained in high-volume centers where surgeons do more than at least 50 pancreatic resections a year,” because the minimally invasive approach is “quite complex and difficult,” more so than open surgery.

“This confirmatory study proves that minimally invasive surgical techniques are a safe and effective option for resectable pancreatic cancer,” commented ASCO expert Jennifer F. Tseng, MD, chair of surgery at Boston University and surgeon-in-chief at the Boston Medical Center. It may also “provide benefits like faster recovery time and less infection risk, without increasing cancer risk.”

The results from this trial “will help both surgeons and patients feel comfortable that minimally invasive surgery, in expert hands, is not inferior to open surgery,” she commented in a statement.
 

Minimally invasive surgery

Only around 12% of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed when the disease is at an early enough stage for surgical resection to be a possibility, Dr. Hilal noted. Minimally invasive pancreatectomy, particularly the distal procedure, was introduced around 25 years ago, but it was initially used only for benign tumors or borderline malignancies.

It took another 10 years before it was considered in cases of confirmed malignancies, “and the main reason for this delay was concerns about the oncological efficiency” of MIDP in terms of its ability to achieve radical resection and an adequate lymph node yield. At the same time, some concerns about minimally invasive surgery for cancer were raised because of results from randomized trials in other cancer types, such as hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Some studies showed worse survival after minimally invasive surgery than after open surgery.

In recent years, use of minimally invasive techniques for pancreatic cancer has become an increasingly “hot topic in many surgical forums,” Dr. Hilal said.

So his team set out to investigate the approach in a phase 3 noninferiority trial. The investigators focused on patients who had an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy plus splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body or tail.

Patients from 35 centers in 12 countries were recruited between May 2018 and May 2021 and were randomly assigned to undergo either MIDP or open distal pancreatectomy.

Patients, nurses, and pathologists were blinded to the surgical procedure by covering of the abdominal wall.

None of the patients underwent adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Following the procedure, the patients were followed up at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, and a CT scan was performed at 12 months. A range of assessments was performed at each visit, including quality of life measures.

From 1,146 patients initially screened, 261 patients were included.

A few patients withdrew; 131 patients underwent MIDP, and 127 underwent open surgery and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Of those, 129 and 125, respectively, were included in the follow-up analysis.

The results confirmed the noninferiority of MIDP, compared with open surgery, with a rate of R0 radical resection (defined as ≥ 1 mm distance between the tumor and the surgical margin) of 73% vs. 69% (P = .039).

In addition, the lymph node yield was comparable between the two approaches, at an average of 22 nodes for MIDP vs. 23 for open surgery (P = .89), and the time to functional recovery was identical, at 5 days for both (P = .22).

The rate of intraperitoneal recurrence was found to be 41% with MIDP, compared with 38% for patients who underwent open surgery.

Dr. Hilal also showed that the rate of serious adverse events, such as bleeding or organ damage, was similar between the two procedures, at 18% with minimally invasive surgery vs. 22% for the open procedure.

Turning to the survival curves, he noted that it is “very clear” that the two procedures achieved near-identical results, at a hazard ratio of 0.99 (P = .94) for overall survival and 0.97 (P = .88) for disease-free survival when comparing MIDP with open surgery.

The researchers will continue to follow up the patients for 3-5 years and will analyze the lymph nodes retrieved to determine whether removal of the spleen is necessary.

The study was funded by Medtronic and Ethicon. Dr. Hilal has relationships with Ethicon and Medtronic. Dr. Tseng has relationships with Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cubist, Curadel Surgical Innovations, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia Therapeutics, Merck, MyoKardia, PanTher Therapeutics, Pfizer, Quest Diagnostics, Sanofi, Vertex, and Zeus.

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

Patients with resectable, early-stage pancreatic cancer can safely undergo minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) as an alternative to traditional open surgery, suggest results from the international DIPLOMA study.

In the trial, around 260 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either open surgery or minimally invasive laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery. Rates of complete tumor removal were comparable between the groups.

In addition, the disease-free and overall survival rates at 3 years were nearly identical.

“For pancreatic cancer, we have proven for the first time that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is as good as open surgery,” commented principal investigator Mohammad Abu Hilal, MD, PhD, surgical director at the Instituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza in Brescia, Italy.

“Our research provides reassurance for surgeons and can help patients by giving them the information they need to have a conversation with their doctor about how they want to be treated,” he added.

Dr. Hilal was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study will be presented (abstract 4163) on June 5.

The study was not able to show that there was a benefit in terms of shorter hospital stays or greater functional recovery with the minimally invasive approach, Dr. Hilal noted, but he suggested that this could be because of differences in postoperative procedures between the participating centers.

He said in an interview that minimally invasive surgery is becoming “very common all over the world,” particularly in the United States, and that randomized controlled trials are “always the last step” in convincing people to use the technique.

He also emphasized that the “best results are obtained in high-volume centers where surgeons do more than at least 50 pancreatic resections a year,” because the minimally invasive approach is “quite complex and difficult,” more so than open surgery.

“This confirmatory study proves that minimally invasive surgical techniques are a safe and effective option for resectable pancreatic cancer,” commented ASCO expert Jennifer F. Tseng, MD, chair of surgery at Boston University and surgeon-in-chief at the Boston Medical Center. It may also “provide benefits like faster recovery time and less infection risk, without increasing cancer risk.”

The results from this trial “will help both surgeons and patients feel comfortable that minimally invasive surgery, in expert hands, is not inferior to open surgery,” she commented in a statement.
 

Minimally invasive surgery

Only around 12% of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed when the disease is at an early enough stage for surgical resection to be a possibility, Dr. Hilal noted. Minimally invasive pancreatectomy, particularly the distal procedure, was introduced around 25 years ago, but it was initially used only for benign tumors or borderline malignancies.

It took another 10 years before it was considered in cases of confirmed malignancies, “and the main reason for this delay was concerns about the oncological efficiency” of MIDP in terms of its ability to achieve radical resection and an adequate lymph node yield. At the same time, some concerns about minimally invasive surgery for cancer were raised because of results from randomized trials in other cancer types, such as hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Some studies showed worse survival after minimally invasive surgery than after open surgery.

In recent years, use of minimally invasive techniques for pancreatic cancer has become an increasingly “hot topic in many surgical forums,” Dr. Hilal said.

So his team set out to investigate the approach in a phase 3 noninferiority trial. The investigators focused on patients who had an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy plus splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body or tail.

Patients from 35 centers in 12 countries were recruited between May 2018 and May 2021 and were randomly assigned to undergo either MIDP or open distal pancreatectomy.

Patients, nurses, and pathologists were blinded to the surgical procedure by covering of the abdominal wall.

None of the patients underwent adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Following the procedure, the patients were followed up at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, and a CT scan was performed at 12 months. A range of assessments was performed at each visit, including quality of life measures.

From 1,146 patients initially screened, 261 patients were included.

A few patients withdrew; 131 patients underwent MIDP, and 127 underwent open surgery and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Of those, 129 and 125, respectively, were included in the follow-up analysis.

The results confirmed the noninferiority of MIDP, compared with open surgery, with a rate of R0 radical resection (defined as ≥ 1 mm distance between the tumor and the surgical margin) of 73% vs. 69% (P = .039).

In addition, the lymph node yield was comparable between the two approaches, at an average of 22 nodes for MIDP vs. 23 for open surgery (P = .89), and the time to functional recovery was identical, at 5 days for both (P = .22).

The rate of intraperitoneal recurrence was found to be 41% with MIDP, compared with 38% for patients who underwent open surgery.

Dr. Hilal also showed that the rate of serious adverse events, such as bleeding or organ damage, was similar between the two procedures, at 18% with minimally invasive surgery vs. 22% for the open procedure.

Turning to the survival curves, he noted that it is “very clear” that the two procedures achieved near-identical results, at a hazard ratio of 0.99 (P = .94) for overall survival and 0.97 (P = .88) for disease-free survival when comparing MIDP with open surgery.

The researchers will continue to follow up the patients for 3-5 years and will analyze the lymph nodes retrieved to determine whether removal of the spleen is necessary.

The study was funded by Medtronic and Ethicon. Dr. Hilal has relationships with Ethicon and Medtronic. Dr. Tseng has relationships with Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cubist, Curadel Surgical Innovations, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia Therapeutics, Merck, MyoKardia, PanTher Therapeutics, Pfizer, Quest Diagnostics, Sanofi, Vertex, and Zeus.

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

Patients with resectable, early-stage pancreatic cancer can safely undergo minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) as an alternative to traditional open surgery, suggest results from the international DIPLOMA study.

In the trial, around 260 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either open surgery or minimally invasive laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery. Rates of complete tumor removal were comparable between the groups.

In addition, the disease-free and overall survival rates at 3 years were nearly identical.

“For pancreatic cancer, we have proven for the first time that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is as good as open surgery,” commented principal investigator Mohammad Abu Hilal, MD, PhD, surgical director at the Instituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza in Brescia, Italy.

“Our research provides reassurance for surgeons and can help patients by giving them the information they need to have a conversation with their doctor about how they want to be treated,” he added.

Dr. Hilal was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study will be presented (abstract 4163) on June 5.

The study was not able to show that there was a benefit in terms of shorter hospital stays or greater functional recovery with the minimally invasive approach, Dr. Hilal noted, but he suggested that this could be because of differences in postoperative procedures between the participating centers.

He said in an interview that minimally invasive surgery is becoming “very common all over the world,” particularly in the United States, and that randomized controlled trials are “always the last step” in convincing people to use the technique.

He also emphasized that the “best results are obtained in high-volume centers where surgeons do more than at least 50 pancreatic resections a year,” because the minimally invasive approach is “quite complex and difficult,” more so than open surgery.

“This confirmatory study proves that minimally invasive surgical techniques are a safe and effective option for resectable pancreatic cancer,” commented ASCO expert Jennifer F. Tseng, MD, chair of surgery at Boston University and surgeon-in-chief at the Boston Medical Center. It may also “provide benefits like faster recovery time and less infection risk, without increasing cancer risk.”

The results from this trial “will help both surgeons and patients feel comfortable that minimally invasive surgery, in expert hands, is not inferior to open surgery,” she commented in a statement.
 

Minimally invasive surgery

Only around 12% of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed when the disease is at an early enough stage for surgical resection to be a possibility, Dr. Hilal noted. Minimally invasive pancreatectomy, particularly the distal procedure, was introduced around 25 years ago, but it was initially used only for benign tumors or borderline malignancies.

It took another 10 years before it was considered in cases of confirmed malignancies, “and the main reason for this delay was concerns about the oncological efficiency” of MIDP in terms of its ability to achieve radical resection and an adequate lymph node yield. At the same time, some concerns about minimally invasive surgery for cancer were raised because of results from randomized trials in other cancer types, such as hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Some studies showed worse survival after minimally invasive surgery than after open surgery.

In recent years, use of minimally invasive techniques for pancreatic cancer has become an increasingly “hot topic in many surgical forums,” Dr. Hilal said.

So his team set out to investigate the approach in a phase 3 noninferiority trial. The investigators focused on patients who had an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy plus splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body or tail.

Patients from 35 centers in 12 countries were recruited between May 2018 and May 2021 and were randomly assigned to undergo either MIDP or open distal pancreatectomy.

Patients, nurses, and pathologists were blinded to the surgical procedure by covering of the abdominal wall.

None of the patients underwent adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Following the procedure, the patients were followed up at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, and a CT scan was performed at 12 months. A range of assessments was performed at each visit, including quality of life measures.

From 1,146 patients initially screened, 261 patients were included.

A few patients withdrew; 131 patients underwent MIDP, and 127 underwent open surgery and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Of those, 129 and 125, respectively, were included in the follow-up analysis.

The results confirmed the noninferiority of MIDP, compared with open surgery, with a rate of R0 radical resection (defined as ≥ 1 mm distance between the tumor and the surgical margin) of 73% vs. 69% (P = .039).

In addition, the lymph node yield was comparable between the two approaches, at an average of 22 nodes for MIDP vs. 23 for open surgery (P = .89), and the time to functional recovery was identical, at 5 days for both (P = .22).

The rate of intraperitoneal recurrence was found to be 41% with MIDP, compared with 38% for patients who underwent open surgery.

Dr. Hilal also showed that the rate of serious adverse events, such as bleeding or organ damage, was similar between the two procedures, at 18% with minimally invasive surgery vs. 22% for the open procedure.

Turning to the survival curves, he noted that it is “very clear” that the two procedures achieved near-identical results, at a hazard ratio of 0.99 (P = .94) for overall survival and 0.97 (P = .88) for disease-free survival when comparing MIDP with open surgery.

The researchers will continue to follow up the patients for 3-5 years and will analyze the lymph nodes retrieved to determine whether removal of the spleen is necessary.

The study was funded by Medtronic and Ethicon. Dr. Hilal has relationships with Ethicon and Medtronic. Dr. Tseng has relationships with Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cubist, Curadel Surgical Innovations, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia Therapeutics, Merck, MyoKardia, PanTher Therapeutics, Pfizer, Quest Diagnostics, Sanofi, Vertex, and Zeus.

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

The first-in-class erythroid maturation agent luspatercept showed significant improvement over the erythropoiesis-stimulating agent epoetin alfa in reducing dependency on red blood cell transfusions among patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) who are ESA naive.

“Luspatercept is the first and only therapy to demonstrate superiority in a head-to-head study against ESAs in [transfusion-dependent] LR-MDS,” first author Guillermo Garcia-Manero, MD, chief of the MDS section, department of leukemia, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a premeeting press briefing in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It should be considered a paradigm shift in the treatment of LR-MDS–associated anemia,” Dr. Garcia-Manero said.

Commenting on the study, Andrew Artz, MD, a professor at the Hematologic Malignancies Research Institute, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., agreed that the results could be practice changing.

“We biologically expected luspatercept to best ESA [in ring sideroblast transfusion–dependent MDS], based on luspatercept often rescuing ESA failures in this setting,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

“The results have the potential to change initial therapy for patients with low-risk red blood cell transfusion-dependent MDS,” he said.

In LR-MDS, which encompasses a variety of bone marrow disorders, chronic anemia is very common, and patients, who are typically elderly, can become burdened by developing dependencies on RBC transfusions.

Transfusion dependency, in addition to creating a host of challenges, can increase the risk of death by as much as 50%, compared with patients who are not transfusion dependent, Dr. Garcia-Manero noted.

While ESAs such as epoetin alfa are the first-line treatment for LR-MDS, patients who are dependent on transfusions are less likely to respond to the agents, hence “there is an unmet need for effective and durable options other than ESAs for treating anemia in patients with LR-MDS,” Dr. Garcia-Manero said.

Luspatercept, a first-in-class monoclonal antibody, has a mechanism of action that is distinct from ESAs, modulating the transforming growth factor–beta pathway and increasing erythrocytosis.

In the previous phase 3 MEDALIST trial, the drug was shown to have efficacy over placebo in reducing the severity of anemia in LR-MDS. In 2020, in what was deemed the first advance in MDS treatment in more than a decade, those results led to approval by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with LR-MDS with ring sideroblasts who are transfusion dependent and are refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive ESAs.

To further investigate luspatercept’s efficacy in a head-to-head comparison with an ESA in LR-MDS patients who are ESA naive, Dr. Garcia-Manero and colleagues conducted the phase 3 COMMANDS trial.

For the global, open-label study, patients with LR-MDS who were dependent on RBC transfusions and had no prior use of ESAs were randomized 1:1 to treatment either with subcutaneous luspatercept (starting dose, 1.0 mg/kg with titration up to 1.75 mg/kg; n = 178) once every 3 weeks or subcutaneous epoetin alfa (starting dose, 450 IU/kg with titration up to 1,050 IU/kg; n = 176) once every week, for a minimum of 24 weeks.

Patients in each arm were also able to receive best supportive care, including blood transfusions. Their baseline characteristics were similar in each arm.

For the primary endpoint, patients receiving luspatercept in the intent-to-treat population were nearly twice as likely as those treated with epoetin alfa to become independent of RBC transfusions, with a concurrent mean hemoglobin increase of 1.5 g/dL or more, for at least 12 weeks in the first 24 weeks on study, at a rate of 58.5% with luspatercept versus 31.2% with epoetin alfa (P < .0001).

In addition, patients treated with luspatercept had a longer median duration of transfusion independence, at 126.6 weeks versus 77 weeks in the epoetin alfa group (hazard ratio, 0.456).

Importantly, the statistically significant improvement with luspatercept was consistent among patients with ring sideroblasts (HR, 0.626) as well as without them (HR, 0.492). Dr. Garcia-Manero noted that about 70% of patients in the study had ring sideroblasts, consistent with their common occurrence in LR-MDS.

Luspatercept was also superior in secondary endpoints, including in achieving hematologic improvement, with an erythroid response of at least 8 weeks, per International Working Group 2006 criteria, which was achieved by 74.1% with luspatercept versus 51.3% with epoetin alfa (P < .0001).

The greater improvement with luspatercept was also observed in other subgroups, including based on baseline serum erythropoietin or levels of transfusion dependence, as well as SF381 mutation status.

In terms of safety, treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade were reported among 92.1% of luspatercept and 85.2% of epoetin alfa patients. Longer-term posttreatment safety analyses showed no significant differences between the groups in terms of progression to high-risk MDS, in five (2.8%) with luspatercept and seven(4.0%) epoetin alfa, and progression to acute myeloid leukemia, occurring in four (2.2%) luspatercept and five (2.8%) epoetin alfa patients.

Overall rates of death between the groups were also similar during the treatment and posttreatment periods (32 [18.0%] luspatercept; 32 [18.2%] epoetin alfa patients).

“The toxicity profile was consistent with previous clinical experience,” Dr. Garcia-Manero said.

Dr. Garcia-Manero underscored that “the results of the COMMANDS trial are very important.”

“ESAs are really not optimal agents [for LR-MDS], and these results indicate that luspatercept almost doubles response rates in this patient population, therefore becoming potentially the standard of care for patients with transfusion-dependent LR-MDS who have not received prior ESA treatment,” he said.

Further commenting, Dr. Artz added that the effects in patient subgroups will be of great interest as further data on luspatercept emerges.

“Of highest interest will be the differential responses among patients with and without ring sideroblasts, as well as by SF3B1 mutational status,” he said. Furthermore, “patient-centric data emerge as even more relevant when considering the quantitatively higher rates of treatment-emergent adverse effects in the luspatercept arm.”

“We need to understand how to best sequence anemia therapies in low-risk MDS when we have two active agents, or even if [there is] a role for combined ESA/luspatercept therapy,” he noted.

“The results are exciting, but we need the final data including relevant subsets before declaring luspatercept the winner,” Dr. Artz concluded.

The study was sponsored by Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Garcia-Manero reported relationships with Abbvie, Acceleron Pharma, Aprea Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, and Novartis. Dr. Artz disclosed previous consulting relationships with Abbvie and Magenta Therapeutics.

The first-in-class erythroid maturation agent luspatercept showed significant improvement over the erythropoiesis-stimulating agent epoetin alfa in reducing dependency on red blood cell transfusions among patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) who are ESA naive.

“Luspatercept is the first and only therapy to demonstrate superiority in a head-to-head study against ESAs in [transfusion-dependent] LR-MDS,” first author Guillermo Garcia-Manero, MD, chief of the MDS section, department of leukemia, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a premeeting press briefing in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It should be considered a paradigm shift in the treatment of LR-MDS–associated anemia,” Dr. Garcia-Manero said.

Commenting on the study, Andrew Artz, MD, a professor at the Hematologic Malignancies Research Institute, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., agreed that the results could be practice changing.

“We biologically expected luspatercept to best ESA [in ring sideroblast transfusion–dependent MDS], based on luspatercept often rescuing ESA failures in this setting,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

“The results have the potential to change initial therapy for patients with low-risk red blood cell transfusion-dependent MDS,” he said.

In LR-MDS, which encompasses a variety of bone marrow disorders, chronic anemia is very common, and patients, who are typically elderly, can become burdened by developing dependencies on RBC transfusions.

Transfusion dependency, in addition to creating a host of challenges, can increase the risk of death by as much as 50%, compared with patients who are not transfusion dependent, Dr. Garcia-Manero noted.

While ESAs such as epoetin alfa are the first-line treatment for LR-MDS, patients who are dependent on transfusions are less likely to respond to the agents, hence “there is an unmet need for effective and durable options other than ESAs for treating anemia in patients with LR-MDS,” Dr. Garcia-Manero said.

Luspatercept, a first-in-class monoclonal antibody, has a mechanism of action that is distinct from ESAs, modulating the transforming growth factor–beta pathway and increasing erythrocytosis.

In the previous phase 3 MEDALIST trial, the drug was shown to have efficacy over placebo in reducing the severity of anemia in LR-MDS. In 2020, in what was deemed the first advance in MDS treatment in more than a decade, those results led to approval by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with LR-MDS with ring sideroblasts who are transfusion dependent and are refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive ESAs.

To further investigate luspatercept’s efficacy in a head-to-head comparison with an ESA in LR-MDS patients who are ESA naive, Dr. Garcia-Manero and colleagues conducted the phase 3 COMMANDS trial.

For the global, open-label study, patients with LR-MDS who were dependent on RBC transfusions and had no prior use of ESAs were randomized 1:1 to treatment either with subcutaneous luspatercept (starting dose, 1.0 mg/kg with titration up to 1.75 mg/kg; n = 178) once every 3 weeks or subcutaneous epoetin alfa (starting dose, 450 IU/kg with titration up to 1,050 IU/kg; n = 176) once every week, for a minimum of 24 weeks.

Patients in each arm were also able to receive best supportive care, including blood transfusions. Their baseline characteristics were similar in each arm.

For the primary endpoint, patients receiving luspatercept in the intent-to-treat population were nearly twice as likely as those treated with epoetin alfa to become independent of RBC transfusions, with a concurrent mean hemoglobin increase of 1.5 g/dL or more, for at least 12 weeks in the first 24 weeks on study, at a rate of 58.5% with luspatercept versus 31.2% with epoetin alfa (P < .0001).

In addition, patients treated with luspatercept had a longer median duration of transfusion independence, at 126.6 weeks versus 77 weeks in the epoetin alfa group (hazard ratio, 0.456).

Importantly, the statistically significant improvement with luspatercept was consistent among patients with ring sideroblasts (HR, 0.626) as well as without them (HR, 0.492). Dr. Garcia-Manero noted that about 70% of patients in the study had ring sideroblasts, consistent with their common occurrence in LR-MDS.

Luspatercept was also superior in secondary endpoints, including in achieving hematologic improvement, with an erythroid response of at least 8 weeks, per International Working Group 2006 criteria, which was achieved by 74.1% with luspatercept versus 51.3% with epoetin alfa (P < .0001).

The greater improvement with luspatercept was also observed in other subgroups, including based on baseline serum erythropoietin or levels of transfusion dependence, as well as SF381 mutation status.

In terms of safety, treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade were reported among 92.1% of luspatercept and 85.2% of epoetin alfa patients. Longer-term posttreatment safety analyses showed no significant differences between the groups in terms of progression to high-risk MDS, in five (2.8%) with luspatercept and seven(4.0%) epoetin alfa, and progression to acute myeloid leukemia, occurring in four (2.2%) luspatercept and five (2.8%) epoetin alfa patients.

Overall rates of death between the groups were also similar during the treatment and posttreatment periods (32 [18.0%] luspatercept; 32 [18.2%] epoetin alfa patients).

“The toxicity profile was consistent with previous clinical experience,” Dr. Garcia-Manero said.

Dr. Garcia-Manero underscored that “the results of the COMMANDS trial are very important.”

“ESAs are really not optimal agents [for LR-MDS], and these results indicate that luspatercept almost doubles response rates in this patient population, therefore becoming potentially the standard of care for patients with transfusion-dependent LR-MDS who have not received prior ESA treatment,” he said.

Further commenting, Dr. Artz added that the effects in patient subgroups will be of great interest as further data on luspatercept emerges.

“Of highest interest will be the differential responses among patients with and without ring sideroblasts, as well as by SF3B1 mutational status,” he said. Furthermore, “patient-centric data emerge as even more relevant when considering the quantitatively higher rates of treatment-emergent adverse effects in the luspatercept arm.”

“We need to understand how to best sequence anemia therapies in low-risk MDS when we have two active agents, or even if [there is] a role for combined ESA/luspatercept therapy,” he noted.

“The results are exciting, but we need the final data including relevant subsets before declaring luspatercept the winner,” Dr. Artz concluded.

The study was sponsored by Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Garcia-Manero reported relationships with Abbvie, Acceleron Pharma, Aprea Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, and Novartis. Dr. Artz disclosed previous consulting relationships with Abbvie and Magenta Therapeutics.

The first-in-class erythroid maturation agent luspatercept showed significant improvement over the erythropoiesis-stimulating agent epoetin alfa in reducing dependency on red blood cell transfusions among patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) who are ESA naive.

“Luspatercept is the first and only therapy to demonstrate superiority in a head-to-head study against ESAs in [transfusion-dependent] LR-MDS,” first author Guillermo Garcia-Manero, MD, chief of the MDS section, department of leukemia, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a premeeting press briefing in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It should be considered a paradigm shift in the treatment of LR-MDS–associated anemia,” Dr. Garcia-Manero said.

Commenting on the study, Andrew Artz, MD, a professor at the Hematologic Malignancies Research Institute, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., agreed that the results could be practice changing.

“We biologically expected luspatercept to best ESA [in ring sideroblast transfusion–dependent MDS], based on luspatercept often rescuing ESA failures in this setting,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

“The results have the potential to change initial therapy for patients with low-risk red blood cell transfusion-dependent MDS,” he said.

In LR-MDS, which encompasses a variety of bone marrow disorders, chronic anemia is very common, and patients, who are typically elderly, can become burdened by developing dependencies on RBC transfusions.

Transfusion dependency, in addition to creating a host of challenges, can increase the risk of death by as much as 50%, compared with patients who are not transfusion dependent, Dr. Garcia-Manero noted.

While ESAs such as epoetin alfa are the first-line treatment for LR-MDS, patients who are dependent on transfusions are less likely to respond to the agents, hence “there is an unmet need for effective and durable options other than ESAs for treating anemia in patients with LR-MDS,” Dr. Garcia-Manero said.

Luspatercept, a first-in-class monoclonal antibody, has a mechanism of action that is distinct from ESAs, modulating the transforming growth factor–beta pathway and increasing erythrocytosis.

In the previous phase 3 MEDALIST trial, the drug was shown to have efficacy over placebo in reducing the severity of anemia in LR-MDS. In 2020, in what was deemed the first advance in MDS treatment in more than a decade, those results led to approval by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with LR-MDS with ring sideroblasts who are transfusion dependent and are refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive ESAs.

To further investigate luspatercept’s efficacy in a head-to-head comparison with an ESA in LR-MDS patients who are ESA naive, Dr. Garcia-Manero and colleagues conducted the phase 3 COMMANDS trial.

For the global, open-label study, patients with LR-MDS who were dependent on RBC transfusions and had no prior use of ESAs were randomized 1:1 to treatment either with subcutaneous luspatercept (starting dose, 1.0 mg/kg with titration up to 1.75 mg/kg; n = 178) once every 3 weeks or subcutaneous epoetin alfa (starting dose, 450 IU/kg with titration up to 1,050 IU/kg; n = 176) once every week, for a minimum of 24 weeks.

Patients in each arm were also able to receive best supportive care, including blood transfusions. Their baseline characteristics were similar in each arm.

For the primary endpoint, patients receiving luspatercept in the intent-to-treat population were nearly twice as likely as those treated with epoetin alfa to become independent of RBC transfusions, with a concurrent mean hemoglobin increase of 1.5 g/dL or more, for at least 12 weeks in the first 24 weeks on study, at a rate of 58.5% with luspatercept versus 31.2% with epoetin alfa (P < .0001).

In addition, patients treated with luspatercept had a longer median duration of transfusion independence, at 126.6 weeks versus 77 weeks in the epoetin alfa group (hazard ratio, 0.456).

Importantly, the statistically significant improvement with luspatercept was consistent among patients with ring sideroblasts (HR, 0.626) as well as without them (HR, 0.492). Dr. Garcia-Manero noted that about 70% of patients in the study had ring sideroblasts, consistent with their common occurrence in LR-MDS.

Luspatercept was also superior in secondary endpoints, including in achieving hematologic improvement, with an erythroid response of at least 8 weeks, per International Working Group 2006 criteria, which was achieved by 74.1% with luspatercept versus 51.3% with epoetin alfa (P < .0001).

The greater improvement with luspatercept was also observed in other subgroups, including based on baseline serum erythropoietin or levels of transfusion dependence, as well as SF381 mutation status.

In terms of safety, treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade were reported among 92.1% of luspatercept and 85.2% of epoetin alfa patients. Longer-term posttreatment safety analyses showed no significant differences between the groups in terms of progression to high-risk MDS, in five (2.8%) with luspatercept and seven(4.0%) epoetin alfa, and progression to acute myeloid leukemia, occurring in four (2.2%) luspatercept and five (2.8%) epoetin alfa patients.

Overall rates of death between the groups were also similar during the treatment and posttreatment periods (32 [18.0%] luspatercept; 32 [18.2%] epoetin alfa patients).

“The toxicity profile was consistent with previous clinical experience,” Dr. Garcia-Manero said.

Dr. Garcia-Manero underscored that “the results of the COMMANDS trial are very important.”

“ESAs are really not optimal agents [for LR-MDS], and these results indicate that luspatercept almost doubles response rates in this patient population, therefore becoming potentially the standard of care for patients with transfusion-dependent LR-MDS who have not received prior ESA treatment,” he said.

Further commenting, Dr. Artz added that the effects in patient subgroups will be of great interest as further data on luspatercept emerges.

“Of highest interest will be the differential responses among patients with and without ring sideroblasts, as well as by SF3B1 mutational status,” he said. Furthermore, “patient-centric data emerge as even more relevant when considering the quantitatively higher rates of treatment-emergent adverse effects in the luspatercept arm.”

“We need to understand how to best sequence anemia therapies in low-risk MDS when we have two active agents, or even if [there is] a role for combined ESA/luspatercept therapy,” he noted.

“The results are exciting, but we need the final data including relevant subsets before declaring luspatercept the winner,” Dr. Artz concluded.

The study was sponsored by Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Garcia-Manero reported relationships with Abbvie, Acceleron Pharma, Aprea Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, and Novartis. Dr. Artz disclosed previous consulting relationships with Abbvie and Magenta Therapeutics.