User login
Particulate pollution increases the risk for breast cancer
MADRID – according to a new analysis of the XENAIR study presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023. Béatrice Fervers, MD, PhD, head of the environmental cancer prevention department at the Léon Bérard Center, Lyon, France, presented her findings.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the risk of breast cancer associated with long-term exposure of subjects to atmospheric pollution both at home and in the workplace, estimated using a very small spatial resolution [statistical] model,” said the researchers.
“Our data showed a statistically significant association between long-term exposure to fine particulate matter air pollution, at home and at work, and risk of breast cancer. This [finding] contrasts with previous research that looked only at fine particulate exposure where women were living and showed small or no effects on breast cancer risk,” said Dr. Fervers in a press release issued before the Congress.
The XENAIR study carried out on the prospective, longitudinal E3N cohort a year ago showed an increased risk for breast cancer after exposure to five atmospheric pollutants. Notably, it showed an increased risk in women exposed to BaP and PCB153, two pollutants classed as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, during perimenopause.
Increased linear risk
In this new analysis, exposure to PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 pollution at home and in the workplace of 2,419 women with breast cancer was compared with that of 2,984 women without breast cancer during the period from 1990 to 2011.
This was a case-control study in which participants were matched by department of residence in France, age (± 1 year), date (± 3 months), and menopausal status at the time of the blood draw.
Breast cancer risk increased by 28% when exposure to fine particulate (PM2.5) air pollution increased by 10 mcg/m3. The increment is approximately equivalent to the difference in PM2.5 particulate concentration typically seen in rural versus urban areas of Europe.
Smaller increases in breast cancer risk were also recorded in women exposed to high levels of larger particulate air pollution (PM10 and NO2).
No change in effect was seen according to menopausal status. Analyses that examined hormone receptor status showed a positive but not significant association for PM2.5 in cases of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer.
Dr. Fervers and colleagues plan to investigate the effects of pollution exposure during the commute to get a complete picture of effects on breast cancer risk.
Regulators respond
Charles Swanton, PhD, a clinician scientist at the Francis Crick Institute, London, emphasized the importance of these new results for breast cancer. At last year’s ESMO Congress, he explained how particulate matter air pollution caused tumor proliferation in patients with a certain type of genetic mutation.
“Fine particle pollutants can penetrate deep into the lungs, enter the bloodstream, and be absorbed into breast and other tissue. There is already evidence that air pollutants can change the architecture of the breast. It will be important to test if pollutants allow cells in breast tissue with pre-existing mutations to expand and drive tumor promotion, possibly through inflammatory processes, similar to our observations in nonsmokers with lung cancer,” said Dr. Swanton in the ESMO press release.
“It is very concerning that small pollutant particles in the air and indeed microplastic particles of similar size are getting into the environment when we don’t yet understand their potential to promote cancer. There is an urgent need to set up laboratory studies to investigate the effects of these small air pollutant particles on the latency, grade, aggression, and progression of breast tumors,” he added.
“There is now strong epidemiological and biological evidence for the link between PM2.5 particulate exposure and cancer, and there are good clinical and economic reasons for reducing pollution to prevent cancers,” said Jean-Yves Blay, MD, PhD, director of public policy for ESMO.
Following a proposal from the European Commission in October 2022 to reduce the limit for PM2.5 particulates in the air from the current 25 mcg/m3 to 10 mcg/m3 by 2030, ESMO urged a further reduction in the PM2.5 limit to 5 mcg/m3, in line with the World Health Organization’s air quality guidance, according to the press release.
“Reducing PM2.5 particles in the air to the WHO recommended level is critical because of their association with a variety of tumor types, including breast cancer,” Dr. Blay added.
In September 2023, the European Parliament adopted in a plenary session its report on the ongoing revision of the EU Ambient Air Quality Directives, which reflects ESMO’s recommendations to set the annual limit value for PM2.5 at 5 mcg/m³. This adoption opens interinstitutional negotiations between the legislators (the European Parliament, European Commission, and EU Council) to agree on the final text of the directive.
“By supporting our requests with solid scientific evidence, we are offering a new dimension to health public policy. The work is not over, and change will not happen overnight, but we are moving in the right direction,” concluded Dr. Blay.
The new analysis of the XENAIR study was funded by ARC Foundation for cancer research; the French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety; French National League against Cancer; and Fondation de France, an independent administrative agency. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – according to a new analysis of the XENAIR study presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023. Béatrice Fervers, MD, PhD, head of the environmental cancer prevention department at the Léon Bérard Center, Lyon, France, presented her findings.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the risk of breast cancer associated with long-term exposure of subjects to atmospheric pollution both at home and in the workplace, estimated using a very small spatial resolution [statistical] model,” said the researchers.
“Our data showed a statistically significant association between long-term exposure to fine particulate matter air pollution, at home and at work, and risk of breast cancer. This [finding] contrasts with previous research that looked only at fine particulate exposure where women were living and showed small or no effects on breast cancer risk,” said Dr. Fervers in a press release issued before the Congress.
The XENAIR study carried out on the prospective, longitudinal E3N cohort a year ago showed an increased risk for breast cancer after exposure to five atmospheric pollutants. Notably, it showed an increased risk in women exposed to BaP and PCB153, two pollutants classed as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, during perimenopause.
Increased linear risk
In this new analysis, exposure to PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 pollution at home and in the workplace of 2,419 women with breast cancer was compared with that of 2,984 women without breast cancer during the period from 1990 to 2011.
This was a case-control study in which participants were matched by department of residence in France, age (± 1 year), date (± 3 months), and menopausal status at the time of the blood draw.
Breast cancer risk increased by 28% when exposure to fine particulate (PM2.5) air pollution increased by 10 mcg/m3. The increment is approximately equivalent to the difference in PM2.5 particulate concentration typically seen in rural versus urban areas of Europe.
Smaller increases in breast cancer risk were also recorded in women exposed to high levels of larger particulate air pollution (PM10 and NO2).
No change in effect was seen according to menopausal status. Analyses that examined hormone receptor status showed a positive but not significant association for PM2.5 in cases of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer.
Dr. Fervers and colleagues plan to investigate the effects of pollution exposure during the commute to get a complete picture of effects on breast cancer risk.
Regulators respond
Charles Swanton, PhD, a clinician scientist at the Francis Crick Institute, London, emphasized the importance of these new results for breast cancer. At last year’s ESMO Congress, he explained how particulate matter air pollution caused tumor proliferation in patients with a certain type of genetic mutation.
“Fine particle pollutants can penetrate deep into the lungs, enter the bloodstream, and be absorbed into breast and other tissue. There is already evidence that air pollutants can change the architecture of the breast. It will be important to test if pollutants allow cells in breast tissue with pre-existing mutations to expand and drive tumor promotion, possibly through inflammatory processes, similar to our observations in nonsmokers with lung cancer,” said Dr. Swanton in the ESMO press release.
“It is very concerning that small pollutant particles in the air and indeed microplastic particles of similar size are getting into the environment when we don’t yet understand their potential to promote cancer. There is an urgent need to set up laboratory studies to investigate the effects of these small air pollutant particles on the latency, grade, aggression, and progression of breast tumors,” he added.
“There is now strong epidemiological and biological evidence for the link between PM2.5 particulate exposure and cancer, and there are good clinical and economic reasons for reducing pollution to prevent cancers,” said Jean-Yves Blay, MD, PhD, director of public policy for ESMO.
Following a proposal from the European Commission in October 2022 to reduce the limit for PM2.5 particulates in the air from the current 25 mcg/m3 to 10 mcg/m3 by 2030, ESMO urged a further reduction in the PM2.5 limit to 5 mcg/m3, in line with the World Health Organization’s air quality guidance, according to the press release.
“Reducing PM2.5 particles in the air to the WHO recommended level is critical because of their association with a variety of tumor types, including breast cancer,” Dr. Blay added.
In September 2023, the European Parliament adopted in a plenary session its report on the ongoing revision of the EU Ambient Air Quality Directives, which reflects ESMO’s recommendations to set the annual limit value for PM2.5 at 5 mcg/m³. This adoption opens interinstitutional negotiations between the legislators (the European Parliament, European Commission, and EU Council) to agree on the final text of the directive.
“By supporting our requests with solid scientific evidence, we are offering a new dimension to health public policy. The work is not over, and change will not happen overnight, but we are moving in the right direction,” concluded Dr. Blay.
The new analysis of the XENAIR study was funded by ARC Foundation for cancer research; the French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety; French National League against Cancer; and Fondation de France, an independent administrative agency. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – according to a new analysis of the XENAIR study presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023. Béatrice Fervers, MD, PhD, head of the environmental cancer prevention department at the Léon Bérard Center, Lyon, France, presented her findings.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the risk of breast cancer associated with long-term exposure of subjects to atmospheric pollution both at home and in the workplace, estimated using a very small spatial resolution [statistical] model,” said the researchers.
“Our data showed a statistically significant association between long-term exposure to fine particulate matter air pollution, at home and at work, and risk of breast cancer. This [finding] contrasts with previous research that looked only at fine particulate exposure where women were living and showed small or no effects on breast cancer risk,” said Dr. Fervers in a press release issued before the Congress.
The XENAIR study carried out on the prospective, longitudinal E3N cohort a year ago showed an increased risk for breast cancer after exposure to five atmospheric pollutants. Notably, it showed an increased risk in women exposed to BaP and PCB153, two pollutants classed as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, during perimenopause.
Increased linear risk
In this new analysis, exposure to PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 pollution at home and in the workplace of 2,419 women with breast cancer was compared with that of 2,984 women without breast cancer during the period from 1990 to 2011.
This was a case-control study in which participants were matched by department of residence in France, age (± 1 year), date (± 3 months), and menopausal status at the time of the blood draw.
Breast cancer risk increased by 28% when exposure to fine particulate (PM2.5) air pollution increased by 10 mcg/m3. The increment is approximately equivalent to the difference in PM2.5 particulate concentration typically seen in rural versus urban areas of Europe.
Smaller increases in breast cancer risk were also recorded in women exposed to high levels of larger particulate air pollution (PM10 and NO2).
No change in effect was seen according to menopausal status. Analyses that examined hormone receptor status showed a positive but not significant association for PM2.5 in cases of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer.
Dr. Fervers and colleagues plan to investigate the effects of pollution exposure during the commute to get a complete picture of effects on breast cancer risk.
Regulators respond
Charles Swanton, PhD, a clinician scientist at the Francis Crick Institute, London, emphasized the importance of these new results for breast cancer. At last year’s ESMO Congress, he explained how particulate matter air pollution caused tumor proliferation in patients with a certain type of genetic mutation.
“Fine particle pollutants can penetrate deep into the lungs, enter the bloodstream, and be absorbed into breast and other tissue. There is already evidence that air pollutants can change the architecture of the breast. It will be important to test if pollutants allow cells in breast tissue with pre-existing mutations to expand and drive tumor promotion, possibly through inflammatory processes, similar to our observations in nonsmokers with lung cancer,” said Dr. Swanton in the ESMO press release.
“It is very concerning that small pollutant particles in the air and indeed microplastic particles of similar size are getting into the environment when we don’t yet understand their potential to promote cancer. There is an urgent need to set up laboratory studies to investigate the effects of these small air pollutant particles on the latency, grade, aggression, and progression of breast tumors,” he added.
“There is now strong epidemiological and biological evidence for the link between PM2.5 particulate exposure and cancer, and there are good clinical and economic reasons for reducing pollution to prevent cancers,” said Jean-Yves Blay, MD, PhD, director of public policy for ESMO.
Following a proposal from the European Commission in October 2022 to reduce the limit for PM2.5 particulates in the air from the current 25 mcg/m3 to 10 mcg/m3 by 2030, ESMO urged a further reduction in the PM2.5 limit to 5 mcg/m3, in line with the World Health Organization’s air quality guidance, according to the press release.
“Reducing PM2.5 particles in the air to the WHO recommended level is critical because of their association with a variety of tumor types, including breast cancer,” Dr. Blay added.
In September 2023, the European Parliament adopted in a plenary session its report on the ongoing revision of the EU Ambient Air Quality Directives, which reflects ESMO’s recommendations to set the annual limit value for PM2.5 at 5 mcg/m³. This adoption opens interinstitutional negotiations between the legislators (the European Parliament, European Commission, and EU Council) to agree on the final text of the directive.
“By supporting our requests with solid scientific evidence, we are offering a new dimension to health public policy. The work is not over, and change will not happen overnight, but we are moving in the right direction,” concluded Dr. Blay.
The new analysis of the XENAIR study was funded by ARC Foundation for cancer research; the French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety; French National League against Cancer; and Fondation de France, an independent administrative agency. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ESMO 2023
T-DXd benefits persist for HER2-low breast cancer
and low HER2 expression in the randomized phase 3 DESTINY-Breast04 study, according to 32-month follow-up data.
The overall safety profile of the HER2-directed antibody drug conjugate was also comparable to that observed at the primary analysis in 2022, and longer exposure did not appear to increase toxicity, Shanu Modi, MD, reported on behalf of the DESTINY-Breast04 investigators at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
“These results continue to support the use of T-DXd as the new standard of care after one line of chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer,” said Dr. Modi, a breast oncologist and attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
DESTINY-Breast04 enrolled 557 patients 2:1 to receive 5.4 mg/kg of T-DXd every 3 weeks or physicians’ choice of capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel, and established HER2-low mBC as “a new targetable patient population with T-DXd as a new standard of care,” she explained.
Median overall survival (mOS) with a median of 18.4 months of follow-up at the Jan. 11, 2022, primary data cut-off was 23.4 months in the T-DXd arm versus 16.8 months in the TPC arm and 23.9 versus 17.5 months, respectively, in the hormone receptor–positive (HR+) cohort (hazard ratio, 0.64 for both groups). At the preplanned extended follow-up with data cut-off on March 1, 2023, the mOS was 22.9 versus 16.8 months for T-DXd versus TPC, and 23.9 versus 17.6 months for the HR+ cohort, respectively (HR, 0.69 for both).
Median progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment was 8.8 versus 4.2 months for the full cohort, and 9.6 versus 4.2 months for the HR+ cohort (HR, 0.36 and 0.37, respectively). PFS was consistent with the results from the primary analysis.
The benefits in the HR+ patients were consistent across all patient subgroups, Dr. Modi noted.
“I do think it’s interesting to point out that at the landmark 2-year point, all patients on standard chemotherapy discontinued study treatment, whereas 15% on T-DXd remain [on treatment] without any evidence of disease progression, Dr. Modi added
An exploratory analysis in the hormone receptor–negative (HR–) cohort showed mOS of 18.2 versus 8.3 months at the primary analysis (HR, 0.48), and a “clinically meaningful and numerical advantage for T-DXd” persisted at the planned follow-up (mOS, 17.1 vs. 8.3; HR, 0.58), she said.
PFS in the HR- cohort was 8.5 versus 2.9 months at the primary analysis, and 6.3 versus 2.9 months at the update (HR, 0.46 and 0.29, respectively).
An assessment of post-study therapies received by patients showed that those therapies did not account for the significant survival advantage conferred by T-DXd, Dr. Modi said.
She noted, however, that while no new safety signals were observed at follow-up, lung toxicity remains a “toxicity of special interest,” having occurred in 12.1% of cases at the time of the primary analysis.
Most cases were grade 1 or 2, and no new cases were observed at follow-up, but one patient with lung toxicity and an initial grade 3 event experienced clinical deterioration and later died from lung toxicity, which underscores the importance of remaining vigilant and intervening promptly in all cases of lung toxicity, Dr. Modi stressed.
Invited discussant Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, reiterated that T-DXd is an effective treatment option and said, “we must accurately identify patients and avoid improperly denying this important therapeutic option.”
Although HER2-low disease is not a unique biological disease entity, it is a “practical and pragmatic definition used to select patients with ‘some degree’ of HER2 protein expression adopting a test and a scoring system already implemented in the routine clinical practice,” said Dr. Bianchini, head of the breast cancer group and head of clinical translational and immunotherapy research at IRCCS Ospedale, San Raffaele, Milan.
However, the current definition may be inadequate, he said, explaining that the ongoing DESTINY-Breast06 study “will challenge the current definition of what we consider HER2-low definition,” potentially extending the T-DXd indication to HER2 ultra-low.
Furthermore, current HER2 testing was designed to discriminate cases with high abundant protein – not for the low HER2 dynamic range, which leads to technical inaccuracy.
Given these considerations, he suggested considering a new biopsy, if feasible, in patients with an immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 0 in all tumor biopsies, and having a revision performed by the pathologist.
In patients with an IHC score of 1 or greater only in one biopsy, there is no need to confirm the HER2-low status, he said.
DESTINY-Breast04 is funded by Daiichi Sankyo Inc. and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi reported relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Seagen, and MacroGenics. Dr. Bianchini reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, MSD, Seagen, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, EISAI, Novartis, Pfizer, Stemline, Exact Science, and Agendia.
and low HER2 expression in the randomized phase 3 DESTINY-Breast04 study, according to 32-month follow-up data.
The overall safety profile of the HER2-directed antibody drug conjugate was also comparable to that observed at the primary analysis in 2022, and longer exposure did not appear to increase toxicity, Shanu Modi, MD, reported on behalf of the DESTINY-Breast04 investigators at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
“These results continue to support the use of T-DXd as the new standard of care after one line of chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer,” said Dr. Modi, a breast oncologist and attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
DESTINY-Breast04 enrolled 557 patients 2:1 to receive 5.4 mg/kg of T-DXd every 3 weeks or physicians’ choice of capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel, and established HER2-low mBC as “a new targetable patient population with T-DXd as a new standard of care,” she explained.
Median overall survival (mOS) with a median of 18.4 months of follow-up at the Jan. 11, 2022, primary data cut-off was 23.4 months in the T-DXd arm versus 16.8 months in the TPC arm and 23.9 versus 17.5 months, respectively, in the hormone receptor–positive (HR+) cohort (hazard ratio, 0.64 for both groups). At the preplanned extended follow-up with data cut-off on March 1, 2023, the mOS was 22.9 versus 16.8 months for T-DXd versus TPC, and 23.9 versus 17.6 months for the HR+ cohort, respectively (HR, 0.69 for both).
Median progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment was 8.8 versus 4.2 months for the full cohort, and 9.6 versus 4.2 months for the HR+ cohort (HR, 0.36 and 0.37, respectively). PFS was consistent with the results from the primary analysis.
The benefits in the HR+ patients were consistent across all patient subgroups, Dr. Modi noted.
“I do think it’s interesting to point out that at the landmark 2-year point, all patients on standard chemotherapy discontinued study treatment, whereas 15% on T-DXd remain [on treatment] without any evidence of disease progression, Dr. Modi added
An exploratory analysis in the hormone receptor–negative (HR–) cohort showed mOS of 18.2 versus 8.3 months at the primary analysis (HR, 0.48), and a “clinically meaningful and numerical advantage for T-DXd” persisted at the planned follow-up (mOS, 17.1 vs. 8.3; HR, 0.58), she said.
PFS in the HR- cohort was 8.5 versus 2.9 months at the primary analysis, and 6.3 versus 2.9 months at the update (HR, 0.46 and 0.29, respectively).
An assessment of post-study therapies received by patients showed that those therapies did not account for the significant survival advantage conferred by T-DXd, Dr. Modi said.
She noted, however, that while no new safety signals were observed at follow-up, lung toxicity remains a “toxicity of special interest,” having occurred in 12.1% of cases at the time of the primary analysis.
Most cases were grade 1 or 2, and no new cases were observed at follow-up, but one patient with lung toxicity and an initial grade 3 event experienced clinical deterioration and later died from lung toxicity, which underscores the importance of remaining vigilant and intervening promptly in all cases of lung toxicity, Dr. Modi stressed.
Invited discussant Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, reiterated that T-DXd is an effective treatment option and said, “we must accurately identify patients and avoid improperly denying this important therapeutic option.”
Although HER2-low disease is not a unique biological disease entity, it is a “practical and pragmatic definition used to select patients with ‘some degree’ of HER2 protein expression adopting a test and a scoring system already implemented in the routine clinical practice,” said Dr. Bianchini, head of the breast cancer group and head of clinical translational and immunotherapy research at IRCCS Ospedale, San Raffaele, Milan.
However, the current definition may be inadequate, he said, explaining that the ongoing DESTINY-Breast06 study “will challenge the current definition of what we consider HER2-low definition,” potentially extending the T-DXd indication to HER2 ultra-low.
Furthermore, current HER2 testing was designed to discriminate cases with high abundant protein – not for the low HER2 dynamic range, which leads to technical inaccuracy.
Given these considerations, he suggested considering a new biopsy, if feasible, in patients with an immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 0 in all tumor biopsies, and having a revision performed by the pathologist.
In patients with an IHC score of 1 or greater only in one biopsy, there is no need to confirm the HER2-low status, he said.
DESTINY-Breast04 is funded by Daiichi Sankyo Inc. and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi reported relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Seagen, and MacroGenics. Dr. Bianchini reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, MSD, Seagen, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, EISAI, Novartis, Pfizer, Stemline, Exact Science, and Agendia.
and low HER2 expression in the randomized phase 3 DESTINY-Breast04 study, according to 32-month follow-up data.
The overall safety profile of the HER2-directed antibody drug conjugate was also comparable to that observed at the primary analysis in 2022, and longer exposure did not appear to increase toxicity, Shanu Modi, MD, reported on behalf of the DESTINY-Breast04 investigators at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
“These results continue to support the use of T-DXd as the new standard of care after one line of chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer,” said Dr. Modi, a breast oncologist and attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
DESTINY-Breast04 enrolled 557 patients 2:1 to receive 5.4 mg/kg of T-DXd every 3 weeks or physicians’ choice of capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel, and established HER2-low mBC as “a new targetable patient population with T-DXd as a new standard of care,” she explained.
Median overall survival (mOS) with a median of 18.4 months of follow-up at the Jan. 11, 2022, primary data cut-off was 23.4 months in the T-DXd arm versus 16.8 months in the TPC arm and 23.9 versus 17.5 months, respectively, in the hormone receptor–positive (HR+) cohort (hazard ratio, 0.64 for both groups). At the preplanned extended follow-up with data cut-off on March 1, 2023, the mOS was 22.9 versus 16.8 months for T-DXd versus TPC, and 23.9 versus 17.6 months for the HR+ cohort, respectively (HR, 0.69 for both).
Median progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment was 8.8 versus 4.2 months for the full cohort, and 9.6 versus 4.2 months for the HR+ cohort (HR, 0.36 and 0.37, respectively). PFS was consistent with the results from the primary analysis.
The benefits in the HR+ patients were consistent across all patient subgroups, Dr. Modi noted.
“I do think it’s interesting to point out that at the landmark 2-year point, all patients on standard chemotherapy discontinued study treatment, whereas 15% on T-DXd remain [on treatment] without any evidence of disease progression, Dr. Modi added
An exploratory analysis in the hormone receptor–negative (HR–) cohort showed mOS of 18.2 versus 8.3 months at the primary analysis (HR, 0.48), and a “clinically meaningful and numerical advantage for T-DXd” persisted at the planned follow-up (mOS, 17.1 vs. 8.3; HR, 0.58), she said.
PFS in the HR- cohort was 8.5 versus 2.9 months at the primary analysis, and 6.3 versus 2.9 months at the update (HR, 0.46 and 0.29, respectively).
An assessment of post-study therapies received by patients showed that those therapies did not account for the significant survival advantage conferred by T-DXd, Dr. Modi said.
She noted, however, that while no new safety signals were observed at follow-up, lung toxicity remains a “toxicity of special interest,” having occurred in 12.1% of cases at the time of the primary analysis.
Most cases were grade 1 or 2, and no new cases were observed at follow-up, but one patient with lung toxicity and an initial grade 3 event experienced clinical deterioration and later died from lung toxicity, which underscores the importance of remaining vigilant and intervening promptly in all cases of lung toxicity, Dr. Modi stressed.
Invited discussant Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, reiterated that T-DXd is an effective treatment option and said, “we must accurately identify patients and avoid improperly denying this important therapeutic option.”
Although HER2-low disease is not a unique biological disease entity, it is a “practical and pragmatic definition used to select patients with ‘some degree’ of HER2 protein expression adopting a test and a scoring system already implemented in the routine clinical practice,” said Dr. Bianchini, head of the breast cancer group and head of clinical translational and immunotherapy research at IRCCS Ospedale, San Raffaele, Milan.
However, the current definition may be inadequate, he said, explaining that the ongoing DESTINY-Breast06 study “will challenge the current definition of what we consider HER2-low definition,” potentially extending the T-DXd indication to HER2 ultra-low.
Furthermore, current HER2 testing was designed to discriminate cases with high abundant protein – not for the low HER2 dynamic range, which leads to technical inaccuracy.
Given these considerations, he suggested considering a new biopsy, if feasible, in patients with an immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 0 in all tumor biopsies, and having a revision performed by the pathologist.
In patients with an IHC score of 1 or greater only in one biopsy, there is no need to confirm the HER2-low status, he said.
DESTINY-Breast04 is funded by Daiichi Sankyo Inc. and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi reported relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Seagen, and MacroGenics. Dr. Bianchini reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, MSD, Seagen, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, EISAI, Novartis, Pfizer, Stemline, Exact Science, and Agendia.
FROM ESMO 2023
How can we improve our approach to cancer-related fatigue?
MADRID – These were the messages delivered by speakers at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology during a session titled “The Multiple Faces of Fatigue in the Cancer Ecosystem.”
Cancer-related fatigue is said to affect 40% of patients at the time of cancer diagnosis, 65% of patients during active or maintenance treatment, 21%-52% of patients in the 5 years following cancer diagnosis, and even one quarter of patients who are between 5 and 30 years post diagnosis, said Florian Scotté, MD, PhD, head of the interdisciplinary department for the Organization of Patient Pathways at Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France.
However, he underlines that “up to 50% of cancer survivors report never having discussed their cancer-related fatigue or received advice or support on how to manage it.”
What exactly is this fatigue? According to the definition set out in the ESMO 2020 recommendations and repeated word for word in the latest recommendations issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network published on Oct. 6, cancer-related fatigue is “a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer or cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent activity and interferes with usual functioning.”
Mechanisms at play
The mechanisms at play in cancer-related fatigue are clinical, molecular, and psychological, stated Dr. Scotté.
In terms of the clinical factors responsible for patients’ fatigue, comorbidities such as anemia, diabetes, heart disease, and even psychological conditions are significant elements. In addition, taking medicinal products such as antidepressants or beta-blockers can also cause fatigue. Furthermore, cancer treatment itself has many possible side effects, such as anemia, hypothyroidism, insomnia, pain, and hypopituitarism.
In terms of molecular and physiologic factors, central nervous system dysfunction (inflammation, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis) leads to perceived reduced physical and mental capacity with no clear motor or cognitive deficiencies. Changes in the peripheral nervous system also cause reduced energy metabolism, which hampers the response of muscles to stimuli, possibly even limiting endurance. Finally, several studies have shown that systemic inflammation is involved in the onset of fatigue.
Dr. Scotté also highlighted the importance of psychological factors, citing depression, psychosocial stress before treatment, negative attention to symptoms, and fear of relapse as key features in the development of cancer-related fatigue.
Among the risk factors for developing cancer-related fatigue, the speaker mentioned a combination of genetic, psychological, and biobehavioral factors (such as preexisting risk factors, depression, sleep disorders, physical inactivity, BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, and adaptability).
Screen and diagnose
“Cancer-related fatigue is one of the most underestimated and least researched side effects,” said Christina Ruhlmann, MD, PhD, an oncology consultant at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital. “It is important to screen for fatigue in cancer patients.”
There are several tools available to enable this screening, she noted. The EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) is a three-item subscale evaluating the symptoms of fatigue, weakness, and lack of energy. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (13 items) assesses fatigue, sleep disorders, and drowsiness. The numeric rating scale (NRS) for fatigue is an 11-point visual self-assessment scale comprising a single element, with 0 representing no fatigue and 10 representing intense fatigue.
When screening for cancer-related fatigue, whenever a score of 4 or more is obtained on the NRS, a diagnostic assessment is needed based on clinical history-taking, fatigue assessment, and evaluation of comorbidities.
When taking the clinical history, information should be obtained on the type of condition, its stage, any relapse or progression, metastases, the date of diagnosis, length of treatment, any cancer or surgical treatments carried out, other treatments administered, and the risk for drug interactions.
In addition, to assess fatigue, the diagnostic process consists of documenting the start, type, and duration of the fatigue, as well as the presence of attenuating factors and interference with activities of daily living and leisure activities.
Seeking information regarding environmental factors such as availability of a support network of family and friends or financial resources is also paramount, said Dr. Ruhlmann.
Finally, contributory factors that may require treatment must be assessed. They include pain, emotional distress, anemia, sleep disorders, nutritional deficiencies, inactivity, smoking and alcohol consumption, and comorbidities (such as cardiac, endocrine, gastrointestinal, hepatic, infectious, and renal conditions).
The following two simple questions can be used to screen for symptoms of depression quickly:
- Over the past month, have you often felt despondent, sad, depressed, or in despair?
- Over the past month, have you found less pleasure than usual in doing the things you normally enjoy doing?
How to treat?
“All of the elements associated with fatigue that can be taken into account ought to be,” stressed Dr. Ruhlmann before insisting on the key role played by physical activity in combating the feeling of exhaustion.
The ESMO recommendations indicate that, according to the results of randomized clinical trials and systematic literature reviews, physical exercise can be recommended in patients with cancer who do not have cachexia (level of evidence I, B).
The type of physical activity recommended is moderate, aerobic, and functional strength exercises (I, B). Walking, aerobic exercises at home, and strength exercises are recommended to improve cancer-related fatigue and quality of life (II, B). “They help with fatigue and also with side effects such as depression, anxiety, pain, and muscle strength,” said Dr. Ruhlmann.
Alongside exercise, and with a lower level of evidence, pharmacologic treatments can sometimes be used (II, B; II, D). Short-term use of dexamethasone or methylprednisolone is recommended for managing fatigue linked to metastatic cancer except during the course of immunotherapy (II, B).
The ESMO expert group did not reach a consensus on the use of methylphenidate, dexmethylphenidate, slow-release methylphenidate, and dexamphetamine.
Modafinil and armodafinil, antidepressants (especially paroxetine), donepezil and eszopiclone, megestrol acetate, and melatonin are not recommended (II, D).
No consensus could be reached on nutraceuticals, and they are not recommended, said Dr. Ruhlmann (II, C; II, D).
Finally, psychosocial interventions in the form of information, advice, psychoeducation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy are useful tools (II, B).
Another area being explored is the gut microbiota. “Research into the microbiota and its role in systemic inflammation is underway and could pave the way for future strategies for managing cancer-related fatigue,” said Dr. Ruhlmann. “Fatigue is a subjective experience, unlike other symptoms. It’s what those people suffering from it say it is!”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.
MADRID – These were the messages delivered by speakers at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology during a session titled “The Multiple Faces of Fatigue in the Cancer Ecosystem.”
Cancer-related fatigue is said to affect 40% of patients at the time of cancer diagnosis, 65% of patients during active or maintenance treatment, 21%-52% of patients in the 5 years following cancer diagnosis, and even one quarter of patients who are between 5 and 30 years post diagnosis, said Florian Scotté, MD, PhD, head of the interdisciplinary department for the Organization of Patient Pathways at Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France.
However, he underlines that “up to 50% of cancer survivors report never having discussed their cancer-related fatigue or received advice or support on how to manage it.”
What exactly is this fatigue? According to the definition set out in the ESMO 2020 recommendations and repeated word for word in the latest recommendations issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network published on Oct. 6, cancer-related fatigue is “a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer or cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent activity and interferes with usual functioning.”
Mechanisms at play
The mechanisms at play in cancer-related fatigue are clinical, molecular, and psychological, stated Dr. Scotté.
In terms of the clinical factors responsible for patients’ fatigue, comorbidities such as anemia, diabetes, heart disease, and even psychological conditions are significant elements. In addition, taking medicinal products such as antidepressants or beta-blockers can also cause fatigue. Furthermore, cancer treatment itself has many possible side effects, such as anemia, hypothyroidism, insomnia, pain, and hypopituitarism.
In terms of molecular and physiologic factors, central nervous system dysfunction (inflammation, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis) leads to perceived reduced physical and mental capacity with no clear motor or cognitive deficiencies. Changes in the peripheral nervous system also cause reduced energy metabolism, which hampers the response of muscles to stimuli, possibly even limiting endurance. Finally, several studies have shown that systemic inflammation is involved in the onset of fatigue.
Dr. Scotté also highlighted the importance of psychological factors, citing depression, psychosocial stress before treatment, negative attention to symptoms, and fear of relapse as key features in the development of cancer-related fatigue.
Among the risk factors for developing cancer-related fatigue, the speaker mentioned a combination of genetic, psychological, and biobehavioral factors (such as preexisting risk factors, depression, sleep disorders, physical inactivity, BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, and adaptability).
Screen and diagnose
“Cancer-related fatigue is one of the most underestimated and least researched side effects,” said Christina Ruhlmann, MD, PhD, an oncology consultant at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital. “It is important to screen for fatigue in cancer patients.”
There are several tools available to enable this screening, she noted. The EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) is a three-item subscale evaluating the symptoms of fatigue, weakness, and lack of energy. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (13 items) assesses fatigue, sleep disorders, and drowsiness. The numeric rating scale (NRS) for fatigue is an 11-point visual self-assessment scale comprising a single element, with 0 representing no fatigue and 10 representing intense fatigue.
When screening for cancer-related fatigue, whenever a score of 4 or more is obtained on the NRS, a diagnostic assessment is needed based on clinical history-taking, fatigue assessment, and evaluation of comorbidities.
When taking the clinical history, information should be obtained on the type of condition, its stage, any relapse or progression, metastases, the date of diagnosis, length of treatment, any cancer or surgical treatments carried out, other treatments administered, and the risk for drug interactions.
In addition, to assess fatigue, the diagnostic process consists of documenting the start, type, and duration of the fatigue, as well as the presence of attenuating factors and interference with activities of daily living and leisure activities.
Seeking information regarding environmental factors such as availability of a support network of family and friends or financial resources is also paramount, said Dr. Ruhlmann.
Finally, contributory factors that may require treatment must be assessed. They include pain, emotional distress, anemia, sleep disorders, nutritional deficiencies, inactivity, smoking and alcohol consumption, and comorbidities (such as cardiac, endocrine, gastrointestinal, hepatic, infectious, and renal conditions).
The following two simple questions can be used to screen for symptoms of depression quickly:
- Over the past month, have you often felt despondent, sad, depressed, or in despair?
- Over the past month, have you found less pleasure than usual in doing the things you normally enjoy doing?
How to treat?
“All of the elements associated with fatigue that can be taken into account ought to be,” stressed Dr. Ruhlmann before insisting on the key role played by physical activity in combating the feeling of exhaustion.
The ESMO recommendations indicate that, according to the results of randomized clinical trials and systematic literature reviews, physical exercise can be recommended in patients with cancer who do not have cachexia (level of evidence I, B).
The type of physical activity recommended is moderate, aerobic, and functional strength exercises (I, B). Walking, aerobic exercises at home, and strength exercises are recommended to improve cancer-related fatigue and quality of life (II, B). “They help with fatigue and also with side effects such as depression, anxiety, pain, and muscle strength,” said Dr. Ruhlmann.
Alongside exercise, and with a lower level of evidence, pharmacologic treatments can sometimes be used (II, B; II, D). Short-term use of dexamethasone or methylprednisolone is recommended for managing fatigue linked to metastatic cancer except during the course of immunotherapy (II, B).
The ESMO expert group did not reach a consensus on the use of methylphenidate, dexmethylphenidate, slow-release methylphenidate, and dexamphetamine.
Modafinil and armodafinil, antidepressants (especially paroxetine), donepezil and eszopiclone, megestrol acetate, and melatonin are not recommended (II, D).
No consensus could be reached on nutraceuticals, and they are not recommended, said Dr. Ruhlmann (II, C; II, D).
Finally, psychosocial interventions in the form of information, advice, psychoeducation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy are useful tools (II, B).
Another area being explored is the gut microbiota. “Research into the microbiota and its role in systemic inflammation is underway and could pave the way for future strategies for managing cancer-related fatigue,” said Dr. Ruhlmann. “Fatigue is a subjective experience, unlike other symptoms. It’s what those people suffering from it say it is!”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.
MADRID – These were the messages delivered by speakers at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology during a session titled “The Multiple Faces of Fatigue in the Cancer Ecosystem.”
Cancer-related fatigue is said to affect 40% of patients at the time of cancer diagnosis, 65% of patients during active or maintenance treatment, 21%-52% of patients in the 5 years following cancer diagnosis, and even one quarter of patients who are between 5 and 30 years post diagnosis, said Florian Scotté, MD, PhD, head of the interdisciplinary department for the Organization of Patient Pathways at Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France.
However, he underlines that “up to 50% of cancer survivors report never having discussed their cancer-related fatigue or received advice or support on how to manage it.”
What exactly is this fatigue? According to the definition set out in the ESMO 2020 recommendations and repeated word for word in the latest recommendations issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network published on Oct. 6, cancer-related fatigue is “a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer or cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent activity and interferes with usual functioning.”
Mechanisms at play
The mechanisms at play in cancer-related fatigue are clinical, molecular, and psychological, stated Dr. Scotté.
In terms of the clinical factors responsible for patients’ fatigue, comorbidities such as anemia, diabetes, heart disease, and even psychological conditions are significant elements. In addition, taking medicinal products such as antidepressants or beta-blockers can also cause fatigue. Furthermore, cancer treatment itself has many possible side effects, such as anemia, hypothyroidism, insomnia, pain, and hypopituitarism.
In terms of molecular and physiologic factors, central nervous system dysfunction (inflammation, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis) leads to perceived reduced physical and mental capacity with no clear motor or cognitive deficiencies. Changes in the peripheral nervous system also cause reduced energy metabolism, which hampers the response of muscles to stimuli, possibly even limiting endurance. Finally, several studies have shown that systemic inflammation is involved in the onset of fatigue.
Dr. Scotté also highlighted the importance of psychological factors, citing depression, psychosocial stress before treatment, negative attention to symptoms, and fear of relapse as key features in the development of cancer-related fatigue.
Among the risk factors for developing cancer-related fatigue, the speaker mentioned a combination of genetic, psychological, and biobehavioral factors (such as preexisting risk factors, depression, sleep disorders, physical inactivity, BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, and adaptability).
Screen and diagnose
“Cancer-related fatigue is one of the most underestimated and least researched side effects,” said Christina Ruhlmann, MD, PhD, an oncology consultant at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital. “It is important to screen for fatigue in cancer patients.”
There are several tools available to enable this screening, she noted. The EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) is a three-item subscale evaluating the symptoms of fatigue, weakness, and lack of energy. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (13 items) assesses fatigue, sleep disorders, and drowsiness. The numeric rating scale (NRS) for fatigue is an 11-point visual self-assessment scale comprising a single element, with 0 representing no fatigue and 10 representing intense fatigue.
When screening for cancer-related fatigue, whenever a score of 4 or more is obtained on the NRS, a diagnostic assessment is needed based on clinical history-taking, fatigue assessment, and evaluation of comorbidities.
When taking the clinical history, information should be obtained on the type of condition, its stage, any relapse or progression, metastases, the date of diagnosis, length of treatment, any cancer or surgical treatments carried out, other treatments administered, and the risk for drug interactions.
In addition, to assess fatigue, the diagnostic process consists of documenting the start, type, and duration of the fatigue, as well as the presence of attenuating factors and interference with activities of daily living and leisure activities.
Seeking information regarding environmental factors such as availability of a support network of family and friends or financial resources is also paramount, said Dr. Ruhlmann.
Finally, contributory factors that may require treatment must be assessed. They include pain, emotional distress, anemia, sleep disorders, nutritional deficiencies, inactivity, smoking and alcohol consumption, and comorbidities (such as cardiac, endocrine, gastrointestinal, hepatic, infectious, and renal conditions).
The following two simple questions can be used to screen for symptoms of depression quickly:
- Over the past month, have you often felt despondent, sad, depressed, or in despair?
- Over the past month, have you found less pleasure than usual in doing the things you normally enjoy doing?
How to treat?
“All of the elements associated with fatigue that can be taken into account ought to be,” stressed Dr. Ruhlmann before insisting on the key role played by physical activity in combating the feeling of exhaustion.
The ESMO recommendations indicate that, according to the results of randomized clinical trials and systematic literature reviews, physical exercise can be recommended in patients with cancer who do not have cachexia (level of evidence I, B).
The type of physical activity recommended is moderate, aerobic, and functional strength exercises (I, B). Walking, aerobic exercises at home, and strength exercises are recommended to improve cancer-related fatigue and quality of life (II, B). “They help with fatigue and also with side effects such as depression, anxiety, pain, and muscle strength,” said Dr. Ruhlmann.
Alongside exercise, and with a lower level of evidence, pharmacologic treatments can sometimes be used (II, B; II, D). Short-term use of dexamethasone or methylprednisolone is recommended for managing fatigue linked to metastatic cancer except during the course of immunotherapy (II, B).
The ESMO expert group did not reach a consensus on the use of methylphenidate, dexmethylphenidate, slow-release methylphenidate, and dexamphetamine.
Modafinil and armodafinil, antidepressants (especially paroxetine), donepezil and eszopiclone, megestrol acetate, and melatonin are not recommended (II, D).
No consensus could be reached on nutraceuticals, and they are not recommended, said Dr. Ruhlmann (II, C; II, D).
Finally, psychosocial interventions in the form of information, advice, psychoeducation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy are useful tools (II, B).
Another area being explored is the gut microbiota. “Research into the microbiota and its role in systemic inflammation is underway and could pave the way for future strategies for managing cancer-related fatigue,” said Dr. Ruhlmann. “Fatigue is a subjective experience, unlike other symptoms. It’s what those people suffering from it say it is!”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.
AT ESMO 2023
Omitting surgery may be safe in early BC after neoadjuvant pCR
A small trial headed by MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, has helped to further identify women who can safely skip surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.
Among 50 women in the study with cT1-2N0-1M0 triple negative or HER2-positive disease, 31 (62%) had a complete pathologic response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy on image-guided vacuum-assisted core biopsy (VACB).
They went onto whole breast radiation with a boost, but given their response to neoadjuvant treatment and the accuracy of VACB, the women did not have surgery.
So far, it seems to have been the right call: At 3 years, there’s been no tumor recurrences and disease-free and overall survival are both 100%.
Eliminating “breast surgery in highly-selected patients with image-guided VACB-determined pCR following” neoadjuvant systemic therapy has “very promising 3-year results,” lead investigator Henry M. Kuerer, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at MD Anderson, who presented the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 annual meeting.
With the success of modern systemic therapy, “it’s only natural that we think this way,” said Ava Kwong, PhD, chief of breast surgery at the University of Hong Kong, who discussed Dr. Kuerer’s presentation at the meeting.
“This study is really important,” she said. “It’s addressing a very important question whether we can omit surgery in certain groups of patients ... We do want to deescalate surgery,” and the study results are “very good,” she said.
However, larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to draw any firm conclusions, she said.
Dr. Kuerer agreed. He and his team will continue to follow the study subjects, and they have opened up a new trial with 100 patients. A similar study is ongoing in Korea, as well, he noted.
Study details
Women in the trial were a median of 60.4 years old; 58% had HER2-positive and the rest triple-negative unicentric breast cancer. Mean baseline tumor size was 2.8 cm. Just 12% of the participants had lymph node involvement. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy was clinician’s choice.
Breast lesions had to shrink to less than 2 cm on imaging after systemic therapy to be eligible for the study, and a minimum of 12 cores had to be obtained on VACB.
The 38% of women in the study with residual disease after systemic treatment went on to surgery.
Two patients were circulating tumor cell (CTC)-positive at baseline, two were positive at 6 months, and one at 12 months. No patients had CTCs detected at more than one timepoint.
The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kuerer is an adviser for Merck. Dr. Kwong is an adviser/speaker/reviewer/author for Stryker, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche. She also disclosed research funding from Merck, Roche, and Gilead and funding for genetic testing from AstraZeneca.
A small trial headed by MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, has helped to further identify women who can safely skip surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.
Among 50 women in the study with cT1-2N0-1M0 triple negative or HER2-positive disease, 31 (62%) had a complete pathologic response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy on image-guided vacuum-assisted core biopsy (VACB).
They went onto whole breast radiation with a boost, but given their response to neoadjuvant treatment and the accuracy of VACB, the women did not have surgery.
So far, it seems to have been the right call: At 3 years, there’s been no tumor recurrences and disease-free and overall survival are both 100%.
Eliminating “breast surgery in highly-selected patients with image-guided VACB-determined pCR following” neoadjuvant systemic therapy has “very promising 3-year results,” lead investigator Henry M. Kuerer, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at MD Anderson, who presented the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 annual meeting.
With the success of modern systemic therapy, “it’s only natural that we think this way,” said Ava Kwong, PhD, chief of breast surgery at the University of Hong Kong, who discussed Dr. Kuerer’s presentation at the meeting.
“This study is really important,” she said. “It’s addressing a very important question whether we can omit surgery in certain groups of patients ... We do want to deescalate surgery,” and the study results are “very good,” she said.
However, larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to draw any firm conclusions, she said.
Dr. Kuerer agreed. He and his team will continue to follow the study subjects, and they have opened up a new trial with 100 patients. A similar study is ongoing in Korea, as well, he noted.
Study details
Women in the trial were a median of 60.4 years old; 58% had HER2-positive and the rest triple-negative unicentric breast cancer. Mean baseline tumor size was 2.8 cm. Just 12% of the participants had lymph node involvement. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy was clinician’s choice.
Breast lesions had to shrink to less than 2 cm on imaging after systemic therapy to be eligible for the study, and a minimum of 12 cores had to be obtained on VACB.
The 38% of women in the study with residual disease after systemic treatment went on to surgery.
Two patients were circulating tumor cell (CTC)-positive at baseline, two were positive at 6 months, and one at 12 months. No patients had CTCs detected at more than one timepoint.
The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kuerer is an adviser for Merck. Dr. Kwong is an adviser/speaker/reviewer/author for Stryker, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche. She also disclosed research funding from Merck, Roche, and Gilead and funding for genetic testing from AstraZeneca.
A small trial headed by MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, has helped to further identify women who can safely skip surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.
Among 50 women in the study with cT1-2N0-1M0 triple negative or HER2-positive disease, 31 (62%) had a complete pathologic response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy on image-guided vacuum-assisted core biopsy (VACB).
They went onto whole breast radiation with a boost, but given their response to neoadjuvant treatment and the accuracy of VACB, the women did not have surgery.
So far, it seems to have been the right call: At 3 years, there’s been no tumor recurrences and disease-free and overall survival are both 100%.
Eliminating “breast surgery in highly-selected patients with image-guided VACB-determined pCR following” neoadjuvant systemic therapy has “very promising 3-year results,” lead investigator Henry M. Kuerer, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at MD Anderson, who presented the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 annual meeting.
With the success of modern systemic therapy, “it’s only natural that we think this way,” said Ava Kwong, PhD, chief of breast surgery at the University of Hong Kong, who discussed Dr. Kuerer’s presentation at the meeting.
“This study is really important,” she said. “It’s addressing a very important question whether we can omit surgery in certain groups of patients ... We do want to deescalate surgery,” and the study results are “very good,” she said.
However, larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to draw any firm conclusions, she said.
Dr. Kuerer agreed. He and his team will continue to follow the study subjects, and they have opened up a new trial with 100 patients. A similar study is ongoing in Korea, as well, he noted.
Study details
Women in the trial were a median of 60.4 years old; 58% had HER2-positive and the rest triple-negative unicentric breast cancer. Mean baseline tumor size was 2.8 cm. Just 12% of the participants had lymph node involvement. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy was clinician’s choice.
Breast lesions had to shrink to less than 2 cm on imaging after systemic therapy to be eligible for the study, and a minimum of 12 cores had to be obtained on VACB.
The 38% of women in the study with residual disease after systemic treatment went on to surgery.
Two patients were circulating tumor cell (CTC)-positive at baseline, two were positive at 6 months, and one at 12 months. No patients had CTCs detected at more than one timepoint.
The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kuerer is an adviser for Merck. Dr. Kwong is an adviser/speaker/reviewer/author for Stryker, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche. She also disclosed research funding from Merck, Roche, and Gilead and funding for genetic testing from AstraZeneca.
FROM ESMO 2023
Later-line tisotumab vedotin shows survival benefit in metastatic cervical CA
which was presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
Median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months among 253 women randomized to tisotumab vedotin (TV) monotherapy versus 9.5 months among 249 randomized to investigators’ choice of chemotherapy, a 30% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0038).
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months with TV versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (P < .0001), but survival benefits were not statistically significant in a number of subgroups.
Nonetheless, “tisotumab vedotin should be considered as a potential new standard of care for patients who have progressed after first-line systemic therapy,” said lead investigator Ignace Vergote, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, who presented the findings.
New and emerging options
The trial serves as the confirmation the Food and Drug Administration required when it gave TV accelerated approval in 2021 for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/m CC) that’s progressed during or after first-line treatment, an approval based on response rates in an earlier phase 2 trial, the InnovaTV 204 study.
TV is the only antibody-drug conjugate approved for the indication, but another agent is also under investigation, the anti-PD-1 cemiplimab. It’s not yet approved for r/m CC, but it is approved in the United States for locally advanced/metastatic basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.
Cemiplimab outcomes were similar to TV’s in a phase 3 trial following progression on first-line treatment without anti-PD-1 therapy, with a median OS of 12 months with cemiplimab versus 8.5 months with investigators’ choice of chemotherapy.
Pembrolizumab is also approved as monotherapy for r/m CC for PD-L1 positive women after progression on or during first-line treatment based on response outcomes, not survival.
The question now is how to pick among the various options, said Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the University of California, Irvine, who discussed InnovaTV 301 at the meeting.
In the second line for r/m CC, “we can hypothetically consider” TV monotherapy; pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive women not previously exposed to a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI); cemiplimab in women not previously exposed to a CPI, and perhaps TV plus pembrolizumab, also in women new to CPIs.
It remains particularly unclear at the moment how to select between TV and cemiplimab monotherapy, if cemiplimab is approved for the indication.
One difference is that unlike in the cemiplimab trial, 28.1% of women treated with TV in the phase 3 trial had been on an anti-PD-(L)1 in the first line. However, although PFS benefits were statistically significant for TV after checkpoint inhibitor exposure, OS benefit was not.
Regarding cost, TV was administered at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks in Innova; 40 mg costs around $7,000.
Cemiplimab was dosed at 350 mg every 3 weeks in its trial; a single dose costs over $10,000.
Subgroups fall short of statistical significance
In InnovaTV 301, 12-month OS was about 48.7% with TV versus 35% with chemotherapy; 6-month PFS was 30.4% with TV versus 18.9%.
The PFS benefit with TV did not reach statistical significance among the 35.2% of women who had not been treated with bevacizumab in the first-line, and there was no OS benefit or trend to benefit (HR 1.0) for them.
In addition to women previously treated with an anti-PD-1, OS benefits with TV were not statistically significant among the 54.2% of women with baseline performance scores of 0; the 36.8% with adeno or adenosquamous carcinoma, and the 62.8% who had been on one prior systemic regimen instead two.
Women in the trial were a median of 50 years old, and fewer than 7% were from the United States. Investigator choice of chemotherapy included topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed.
The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 29.2% with TV and 45.2% with chemotherapy.
The known side effects of TV were all higher than in the chemotherapy arm, including grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (5.2%), ocular events (3.2%), and bleeding (0.8%).
The study was funded in part by Genmab and SeaGen, the companies co-developing TV. Dr. Vergote is an adviser to both companies and many others. Dr. Tewari is an adviser/consultant, researcher, and speaker for SeaGen and Genmab as well as for Merck, AstraZeneca, and other companies.
which was presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
Median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months among 253 women randomized to tisotumab vedotin (TV) monotherapy versus 9.5 months among 249 randomized to investigators’ choice of chemotherapy, a 30% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0038).
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months with TV versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (P < .0001), but survival benefits were not statistically significant in a number of subgroups.
Nonetheless, “tisotumab vedotin should be considered as a potential new standard of care for patients who have progressed after first-line systemic therapy,” said lead investigator Ignace Vergote, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, who presented the findings.
New and emerging options
The trial serves as the confirmation the Food and Drug Administration required when it gave TV accelerated approval in 2021 for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/m CC) that’s progressed during or after first-line treatment, an approval based on response rates in an earlier phase 2 trial, the InnovaTV 204 study.
TV is the only antibody-drug conjugate approved for the indication, but another agent is also under investigation, the anti-PD-1 cemiplimab. It’s not yet approved for r/m CC, but it is approved in the United States for locally advanced/metastatic basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.
Cemiplimab outcomes were similar to TV’s in a phase 3 trial following progression on first-line treatment without anti-PD-1 therapy, with a median OS of 12 months with cemiplimab versus 8.5 months with investigators’ choice of chemotherapy.
Pembrolizumab is also approved as monotherapy for r/m CC for PD-L1 positive women after progression on or during first-line treatment based on response outcomes, not survival.
The question now is how to pick among the various options, said Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the University of California, Irvine, who discussed InnovaTV 301 at the meeting.
In the second line for r/m CC, “we can hypothetically consider” TV monotherapy; pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive women not previously exposed to a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI); cemiplimab in women not previously exposed to a CPI, and perhaps TV plus pembrolizumab, also in women new to CPIs.
It remains particularly unclear at the moment how to select between TV and cemiplimab monotherapy, if cemiplimab is approved for the indication.
One difference is that unlike in the cemiplimab trial, 28.1% of women treated with TV in the phase 3 trial had been on an anti-PD-(L)1 in the first line. However, although PFS benefits were statistically significant for TV after checkpoint inhibitor exposure, OS benefit was not.
Regarding cost, TV was administered at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks in Innova; 40 mg costs around $7,000.
Cemiplimab was dosed at 350 mg every 3 weeks in its trial; a single dose costs over $10,000.
Subgroups fall short of statistical significance
In InnovaTV 301, 12-month OS was about 48.7% with TV versus 35% with chemotherapy; 6-month PFS was 30.4% with TV versus 18.9%.
The PFS benefit with TV did not reach statistical significance among the 35.2% of women who had not been treated with bevacizumab in the first-line, and there was no OS benefit or trend to benefit (HR 1.0) for them.
In addition to women previously treated with an anti-PD-1, OS benefits with TV were not statistically significant among the 54.2% of women with baseline performance scores of 0; the 36.8% with adeno or adenosquamous carcinoma, and the 62.8% who had been on one prior systemic regimen instead two.
Women in the trial were a median of 50 years old, and fewer than 7% were from the United States. Investigator choice of chemotherapy included topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed.
The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 29.2% with TV and 45.2% with chemotherapy.
The known side effects of TV were all higher than in the chemotherapy arm, including grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (5.2%), ocular events (3.2%), and bleeding (0.8%).
The study was funded in part by Genmab and SeaGen, the companies co-developing TV. Dr. Vergote is an adviser to both companies and many others. Dr. Tewari is an adviser/consultant, researcher, and speaker for SeaGen and Genmab as well as for Merck, AstraZeneca, and other companies.
which was presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
Median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months among 253 women randomized to tisotumab vedotin (TV) monotherapy versus 9.5 months among 249 randomized to investigators’ choice of chemotherapy, a 30% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0038).
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months with TV versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (P < .0001), but survival benefits were not statistically significant in a number of subgroups.
Nonetheless, “tisotumab vedotin should be considered as a potential new standard of care for patients who have progressed after first-line systemic therapy,” said lead investigator Ignace Vergote, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, who presented the findings.
New and emerging options
The trial serves as the confirmation the Food and Drug Administration required when it gave TV accelerated approval in 2021 for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/m CC) that’s progressed during or after first-line treatment, an approval based on response rates in an earlier phase 2 trial, the InnovaTV 204 study.
TV is the only antibody-drug conjugate approved for the indication, but another agent is also under investigation, the anti-PD-1 cemiplimab. It’s not yet approved for r/m CC, but it is approved in the United States for locally advanced/metastatic basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.
Cemiplimab outcomes were similar to TV’s in a phase 3 trial following progression on first-line treatment without anti-PD-1 therapy, with a median OS of 12 months with cemiplimab versus 8.5 months with investigators’ choice of chemotherapy.
Pembrolizumab is also approved as monotherapy for r/m CC for PD-L1 positive women after progression on or during first-line treatment based on response outcomes, not survival.
The question now is how to pick among the various options, said Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the University of California, Irvine, who discussed InnovaTV 301 at the meeting.
In the second line for r/m CC, “we can hypothetically consider” TV monotherapy; pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive women not previously exposed to a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI); cemiplimab in women not previously exposed to a CPI, and perhaps TV plus pembrolizumab, also in women new to CPIs.
It remains particularly unclear at the moment how to select between TV and cemiplimab monotherapy, if cemiplimab is approved for the indication.
One difference is that unlike in the cemiplimab trial, 28.1% of women treated with TV in the phase 3 trial had been on an anti-PD-(L)1 in the first line. However, although PFS benefits were statistically significant for TV after checkpoint inhibitor exposure, OS benefit was not.
Regarding cost, TV was administered at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks in Innova; 40 mg costs around $7,000.
Cemiplimab was dosed at 350 mg every 3 weeks in its trial; a single dose costs over $10,000.
Subgroups fall short of statistical significance
In InnovaTV 301, 12-month OS was about 48.7% with TV versus 35% with chemotherapy; 6-month PFS was 30.4% with TV versus 18.9%.
The PFS benefit with TV did not reach statistical significance among the 35.2% of women who had not been treated with bevacizumab in the first-line, and there was no OS benefit or trend to benefit (HR 1.0) for them.
In addition to women previously treated with an anti-PD-1, OS benefits with TV were not statistically significant among the 54.2% of women with baseline performance scores of 0; the 36.8% with adeno or adenosquamous carcinoma, and the 62.8% who had been on one prior systemic regimen instead two.
Women in the trial were a median of 50 years old, and fewer than 7% were from the United States. Investigator choice of chemotherapy included topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed.
The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 29.2% with TV and 45.2% with chemotherapy.
The known side effects of TV were all higher than in the chemotherapy arm, including grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (5.2%), ocular events (3.2%), and bleeding (0.8%).
The study was funded in part by Genmab and SeaGen, the companies co-developing TV. Dr. Vergote is an adviser to both companies and many others. Dr. Tewari is an adviser/consultant, researcher, and speaker for SeaGen and Genmab as well as for Merck, AstraZeneca, and other companies.
FROM ESMO 2023
PD-1 inhibitor improves outcomes in NHL subtype
, while pretreatment mutational profiles offer clues as to which patients may respond to such anti-PD-1 treatments, according to studies presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
“We found that toripalimab combined with radiotherapy is safe and has promising efficacy for stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma [patients] who have poor response after previous standard chemotherapy,” said first author Ming Jiang, MD, of the department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
“This combined strategy can not only improve patient efficacy but also avoid unnecessary medication, and is worth further exploration,” she said in a presentation at ESMO on Oct. 27 in Madrid. The current standard of care for extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is L-asparaginase or pegaspargase-based multi-agent chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy.
However, for patients who fail to respond to first-line treatment, the prognosis is poor: The median progression-free survival of those patients is approximately 4.5 months, with a median overall survival of about 6.4 months, Dr. Jiang explained.
“There is a need to establish a better first-line treatment for this group of patients,” she said.
In the prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 study, Dr. Jiang and her colleagues enrolled patients with stage 1 and 2 extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who had failed to achieve a complete response following 2-3 cycles of multi-agent chemotherapy.
Of the patients, eight (36.4%) had partial response, eight (36.2%) had stable disease, and six (27.2%) had progressive disease after the chemotherapy.
The patients were treated with toripalimab at 240 mg, once every 3 weeks, plus radiotherapy at a dose of 56 Gy, sequentially with or without two to four cycles of chemotherapy.
Patients who did not have disease progression were then continued with toripalimab for 1 year or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The 22 patients had a median age of 45 (range 26-64) and 14 were male. Most were stage 1 (77.3%; 17) and the remaining were stage 2, while 81% had primary tumor invasion.
For the primary endpoint, at 3 months following radiotherapy, the overall response rate was 90.9%, with 17 patients (77.3%) having a complete response, 3 (13.6%) a partial response, and 2 (9.1%) having progressive disease.
Eight who had responded to previous chemotherapy received two additional chemotherapy cycles after completion of radiotherapy, while the others were treated with toripalimab alone.
With a median follow-up of 23 months (range 3-78), the 2-year progression-free survival was 81.6%, and overall survival was 95.0%.
Two of three patients with a partial response had a recurrence after radiotherapy at 5 and 10 months; one of the complete-response patients had a recurrence at 60 months, and two patients with progressive disease died at 9 months after radiotherapy.
In terms of safety, the most common adverse events during and after radiotherapy included oral mucositis and hypothyroidism. No adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported.
Dr. Jiang speculated that “radiotherapy could synergize PD-1 inhibitors,” and she urged that “optimal radiotherapy and PD-1 inhibitor administration plans should be further explored.”
Genetic factors
Additional research presented in that ESMO session offered insights into the genetic factors that may play key roles in either response or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL), of which extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is a subtype.
The findings are from a genetic analysis of a phase 2 trial that demonstrated benefits the PD-1 inhibitor geptanolimab in patients with PTCL who failed initial chemotherapy.
Specifically, geptanolimab treatment was associated with an objective response rate of 40.4%, a complete response rate of 14.6%, and partial response rate of 25.8%.
Of 44 patients who had been treated with geptanolimab and had next-generation sequencing genetic data available, PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly elevated among those who had a complete or partial response, whereas PD-L1 expression was lower among those who had disease progression, which is consistent with previous research suggesting that low PD-L1 expression is linked to poorer response to anti-PD-1 therapies.
Tumor mutation burden did not exhibit significant prognostic value. However, the authors noted that this may be confounded by variation across PTCL subtypes.
Among other key findings were that JAK3 and EZH2 mutations, which are among the top genes frequently mutated in PTCL and extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, were consistently associated with low PD-L1 expression (P < .05) and shorter progression-free survival (HR 5.97; P = .027, JAK3, and HR 4.76; P = .027 EZH2).
“Notably, we found JAK3 mutations, which are vital and prevalent in PTCL, reduced PD-L1 levels in vivo and in vitro, which are of great clinical and biological sense,” said the study’s first author, Ning Lou, MD, of the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand in Dijon, France, said that the findings are especially notable in relation to extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma.
“The clinical relevance of anti PD1 is mainly observed in relapsing/recurrent extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, and much less in other T-cell lymphoma subtypes,” he told this news organization.
“So identifying molecular events associated with the chance of response to a PD1 blocker in relapsing extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is important as PD1-blockers are recommended to treat [those] patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
Furthermore, “the interest of next-generation sequencing to identify JAK3 mutations associated with low level of PDL1 expression and weak response to anti PD1 blockers is important as JAK3 mutated tumors are potentially targetable by JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib,” he said.
“Obviously this assumption has to be tested in clinical trials but it’s an interesting lead.”
The research on toripalimab additionally shows that “the combination of radiotherapy and PD1 blockers provides a high response rate in patients who are nonresponders to asparaginase-based chemotherapy on the basis of PET evaluation and could be a new option for optimizing the first line treatment of extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
The authors and Dr. Casasnovas had no disclosures to report.
, while pretreatment mutational profiles offer clues as to which patients may respond to such anti-PD-1 treatments, according to studies presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
“We found that toripalimab combined with radiotherapy is safe and has promising efficacy for stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma [patients] who have poor response after previous standard chemotherapy,” said first author Ming Jiang, MD, of the department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
“This combined strategy can not only improve patient efficacy but also avoid unnecessary medication, and is worth further exploration,” she said in a presentation at ESMO on Oct. 27 in Madrid. The current standard of care for extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is L-asparaginase or pegaspargase-based multi-agent chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy.
However, for patients who fail to respond to first-line treatment, the prognosis is poor: The median progression-free survival of those patients is approximately 4.5 months, with a median overall survival of about 6.4 months, Dr. Jiang explained.
“There is a need to establish a better first-line treatment for this group of patients,” she said.
In the prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 study, Dr. Jiang and her colleagues enrolled patients with stage 1 and 2 extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who had failed to achieve a complete response following 2-3 cycles of multi-agent chemotherapy.
Of the patients, eight (36.4%) had partial response, eight (36.2%) had stable disease, and six (27.2%) had progressive disease after the chemotherapy.
The patients were treated with toripalimab at 240 mg, once every 3 weeks, plus radiotherapy at a dose of 56 Gy, sequentially with or without two to four cycles of chemotherapy.
Patients who did not have disease progression were then continued with toripalimab for 1 year or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The 22 patients had a median age of 45 (range 26-64) and 14 were male. Most were stage 1 (77.3%; 17) and the remaining were stage 2, while 81% had primary tumor invasion.
For the primary endpoint, at 3 months following radiotherapy, the overall response rate was 90.9%, with 17 patients (77.3%) having a complete response, 3 (13.6%) a partial response, and 2 (9.1%) having progressive disease.
Eight who had responded to previous chemotherapy received two additional chemotherapy cycles after completion of radiotherapy, while the others were treated with toripalimab alone.
With a median follow-up of 23 months (range 3-78), the 2-year progression-free survival was 81.6%, and overall survival was 95.0%.
Two of three patients with a partial response had a recurrence after radiotherapy at 5 and 10 months; one of the complete-response patients had a recurrence at 60 months, and two patients with progressive disease died at 9 months after radiotherapy.
In terms of safety, the most common adverse events during and after radiotherapy included oral mucositis and hypothyroidism. No adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported.
Dr. Jiang speculated that “radiotherapy could synergize PD-1 inhibitors,” and she urged that “optimal radiotherapy and PD-1 inhibitor administration plans should be further explored.”
Genetic factors
Additional research presented in that ESMO session offered insights into the genetic factors that may play key roles in either response or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL), of which extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is a subtype.
The findings are from a genetic analysis of a phase 2 trial that demonstrated benefits the PD-1 inhibitor geptanolimab in patients with PTCL who failed initial chemotherapy.
Specifically, geptanolimab treatment was associated with an objective response rate of 40.4%, a complete response rate of 14.6%, and partial response rate of 25.8%.
Of 44 patients who had been treated with geptanolimab and had next-generation sequencing genetic data available, PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly elevated among those who had a complete or partial response, whereas PD-L1 expression was lower among those who had disease progression, which is consistent with previous research suggesting that low PD-L1 expression is linked to poorer response to anti-PD-1 therapies.
Tumor mutation burden did not exhibit significant prognostic value. However, the authors noted that this may be confounded by variation across PTCL subtypes.
Among other key findings were that JAK3 and EZH2 mutations, which are among the top genes frequently mutated in PTCL and extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, were consistently associated with low PD-L1 expression (P < .05) and shorter progression-free survival (HR 5.97; P = .027, JAK3, and HR 4.76; P = .027 EZH2).
“Notably, we found JAK3 mutations, which are vital and prevalent in PTCL, reduced PD-L1 levels in vivo and in vitro, which are of great clinical and biological sense,” said the study’s first author, Ning Lou, MD, of the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand in Dijon, France, said that the findings are especially notable in relation to extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma.
“The clinical relevance of anti PD1 is mainly observed in relapsing/recurrent extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, and much less in other T-cell lymphoma subtypes,” he told this news organization.
“So identifying molecular events associated with the chance of response to a PD1 blocker in relapsing extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is important as PD1-blockers are recommended to treat [those] patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
Furthermore, “the interest of next-generation sequencing to identify JAK3 mutations associated with low level of PDL1 expression and weak response to anti PD1 blockers is important as JAK3 mutated tumors are potentially targetable by JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib,” he said.
“Obviously this assumption has to be tested in clinical trials but it’s an interesting lead.”
The research on toripalimab additionally shows that “the combination of radiotherapy and PD1 blockers provides a high response rate in patients who are nonresponders to asparaginase-based chemotherapy on the basis of PET evaluation and could be a new option for optimizing the first line treatment of extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
The authors and Dr. Casasnovas had no disclosures to report.
, while pretreatment mutational profiles offer clues as to which patients may respond to such anti-PD-1 treatments, according to studies presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
“We found that toripalimab combined with radiotherapy is safe and has promising efficacy for stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma [patients] who have poor response after previous standard chemotherapy,” said first author Ming Jiang, MD, of the department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
“This combined strategy can not only improve patient efficacy but also avoid unnecessary medication, and is worth further exploration,” she said in a presentation at ESMO on Oct. 27 in Madrid. The current standard of care for extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is L-asparaginase or pegaspargase-based multi-agent chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy.
However, for patients who fail to respond to first-line treatment, the prognosis is poor: The median progression-free survival of those patients is approximately 4.5 months, with a median overall survival of about 6.4 months, Dr. Jiang explained.
“There is a need to establish a better first-line treatment for this group of patients,” she said.
In the prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 study, Dr. Jiang and her colleagues enrolled patients with stage 1 and 2 extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who had failed to achieve a complete response following 2-3 cycles of multi-agent chemotherapy.
Of the patients, eight (36.4%) had partial response, eight (36.2%) had stable disease, and six (27.2%) had progressive disease after the chemotherapy.
The patients were treated with toripalimab at 240 mg, once every 3 weeks, plus radiotherapy at a dose of 56 Gy, sequentially with or without two to four cycles of chemotherapy.
Patients who did not have disease progression were then continued with toripalimab for 1 year or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The 22 patients had a median age of 45 (range 26-64) and 14 were male. Most were stage 1 (77.3%; 17) and the remaining were stage 2, while 81% had primary tumor invasion.
For the primary endpoint, at 3 months following radiotherapy, the overall response rate was 90.9%, with 17 patients (77.3%) having a complete response, 3 (13.6%) a partial response, and 2 (9.1%) having progressive disease.
Eight who had responded to previous chemotherapy received two additional chemotherapy cycles after completion of radiotherapy, while the others were treated with toripalimab alone.
With a median follow-up of 23 months (range 3-78), the 2-year progression-free survival was 81.6%, and overall survival was 95.0%.
Two of three patients with a partial response had a recurrence after radiotherapy at 5 and 10 months; one of the complete-response patients had a recurrence at 60 months, and two patients with progressive disease died at 9 months after radiotherapy.
In terms of safety, the most common adverse events during and after radiotherapy included oral mucositis and hypothyroidism. No adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported.
Dr. Jiang speculated that “radiotherapy could synergize PD-1 inhibitors,” and she urged that “optimal radiotherapy and PD-1 inhibitor administration plans should be further explored.”
Genetic factors
Additional research presented in that ESMO session offered insights into the genetic factors that may play key roles in either response or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL), of which extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is a subtype.
The findings are from a genetic analysis of a phase 2 trial that demonstrated benefits the PD-1 inhibitor geptanolimab in patients with PTCL who failed initial chemotherapy.
Specifically, geptanolimab treatment was associated with an objective response rate of 40.4%, a complete response rate of 14.6%, and partial response rate of 25.8%.
Of 44 patients who had been treated with geptanolimab and had next-generation sequencing genetic data available, PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly elevated among those who had a complete or partial response, whereas PD-L1 expression was lower among those who had disease progression, which is consistent with previous research suggesting that low PD-L1 expression is linked to poorer response to anti-PD-1 therapies.
Tumor mutation burden did not exhibit significant prognostic value. However, the authors noted that this may be confounded by variation across PTCL subtypes.
Among other key findings were that JAK3 and EZH2 mutations, which are among the top genes frequently mutated in PTCL and extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, were consistently associated with low PD-L1 expression (P < .05) and shorter progression-free survival (HR 5.97; P = .027, JAK3, and HR 4.76; P = .027 EZH2).
“Notably, we found JAK3 mutations, which are vital and prevalent in PTCL, reduced PD-L1 levels in vivo and in vitro, which are of great clinical and biological sense,” said the study’s first author, Ning Lou, MD, of the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand in Dijon, France, said that the findings are especially notable in relation to extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma.
“The clinical relevance of anti PD1 is mainly observed in relapsing/recurrent extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, and much less in other T-cell lymphoma subtypes,” he told this news organization.
“So identifying molecular events associated with the chance of response to a PD1 blocker in relapsing extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is important as PD1-blockers are recommended to treat [those] patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
Furthermore, “the interest of next-generation sequencing to identify JAK3 mutations associated with low level of PDL1 expression and weak response to anti PD1 blockers is important as JAK3 mutated tumors are potentially targetable by JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib,” he said.
“Obviously this assumption has to be tested in clinical trials but it’s an interesting lead.”
The research on toripalimab additionally shows that “the combination of radiotherapy and PD1 blockers provides a high response rate in patients who are nonresponders to asparaginase-based chemotherapy on the basis of PET evaluation and could be a new option for optimizing the first line treatment of extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
The authors and Dr. Casasnovas had no disclosures to report.
FROM ESMO 2023
Neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or both? The debate in NSCLC rages on
MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.
said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.
Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.
Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.
Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.
In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).
In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).
Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.
Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.
The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.
Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.
The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.
Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?
The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.
Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.
The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.
But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?
Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.
For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.
“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.
Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.
said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.
Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.
Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.
Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.
In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).
In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).
Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.
Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.
The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.
Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.
The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.
Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?
The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.
Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.
The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.
But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?
Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.
For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.
“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.
Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.
said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.
Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.
Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.
Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.
In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).
In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).
Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.
Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.
The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.
Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.
The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.
Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?
The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.
Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.
The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.
But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?
Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.
For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.
“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.
Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ESMO 2023
‘We finally made it’: Amivantamab comes of age in NSCLC
MADRID – , experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).
The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.
Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.
Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.
The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.
In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.
The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).
A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.
The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).
The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.
Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”
The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
The MARIPOSA trials
The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.
Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.
Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.
For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).
After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.
The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).
The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).
Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.
As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.
Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”
Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.
In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).
Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.
The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.
After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.
This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).
The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.
The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.
Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.
Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.
Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.
The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.
However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”
“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.
PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – , experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).
The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.
Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.
Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.
The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.
In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.
The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).
A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.
The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).
The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.
Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”
The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
The MARIPOSA trials
The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.
Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.
Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.
For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).
After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.
The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).
The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).
Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.
As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.
Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”
Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.
In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).
Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.
The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.
After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.
This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).
The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.
The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.
Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.
Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.
Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.
The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.
However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”
“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.
PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – , experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).
The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.
Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.
Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.
The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.
In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.
The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).
A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.
The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).
The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.
Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”
The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
The MARIPOSA trials
The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.
Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.
Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.
For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).
After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.
The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).
The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).
Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.
As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.
Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”
Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.
In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).
Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.
The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.
After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.
This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).
The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.
The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.
Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.
Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.
Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.
The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.
However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”
“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.
PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ESMO 2023
Induction chemotherapy in first line improves survival for locally advanced cervical cancer
and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.
Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.
She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.
Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.
“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.
Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.
“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.
Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.
KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.
Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.
He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.
Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.
It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.
The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.
Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.
One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.
Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.
The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.
and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.
Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.
She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.
Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.
“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.
Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.
“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.
Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.
KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.
Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.
He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.
Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.
It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.
The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.
Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.
One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.
Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.
The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.
and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.
Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.
She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.
Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.
“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.
Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.
“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.
Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.
KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.
Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.
He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.
Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.
It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.
The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.
Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.
One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.
Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.
The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.
FROM ESMO CONGRESS 2023
Ocular MALT lymphoma: Radiation reduces relapse
“Our study represents the largest institutional cohort analysis on the course of patients with stage I POAML,” said first author Linrui Gao, MD, of the department of radiation oncology at the National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Dr. Gao presented these findings at ESMO 2023, held in Madrid.
“We confirm the indolent nature of this stage I disease, with mortality that is similar to the general population and a low rate of lymphoma-attributed mortality,” she said, adding that “radiation therapy was associated with the lowest relapse or disease progression, compared with [other treatments].”
POAML, which can involve lesions in areas including the eyelid, conjunctiva, orbit, and lacrimal gland, makes up about 7% of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas. However, the incidence is reported to be steadily increasing. With the majority of patients, 70%-85%, diagnosed as stage I, consensus on treatment approaches is lacking.
Guidelines typically recommend radiation therapy as the standard of care, and approximately 70% of POAML patients do receive the therapy, compared with only about 36% of those with early-stage MALT lymphoma, with the indolent nature of the disease likely weighing on decisions to forgo the treatment, Dr. Gao reported.
“Adoption of initial radiotherapy in early-stage POAML is relatively low worldwide, with possible reasons being [concerns] of a low survival benefit and long-term toxicities,” she said.
To evaluate the long-term outcomes based on baseline clinical features and treatments, Dr. Gao and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 262 patients with stage I POAML (ipsilateral or bilateral disease), enrolled between January 2000 and December 2020 at two hospitals in China.
Of the patients, who had a median age of 55 and a male-female ratio of 1:3, 82 were initially treated with radiation therapy, 81 with observation, 70 with surgery, and 29 with systemic treatment.
Those receiving radiation therapy had higher rates of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or higher (P = .02), higher elevations of LDH (P = .03), and higher rates of chronic disease (P < .001), while other baseline characteristics between the groups, including age, T stage, symptom duration, and other factors, were similar.
With a median follow-up of 66 months, the 5-year and 10-year overall survival rates were 96.8% and 90%, respectively, which is similar to the survival rate in the general population in China.
Likewise, the 5- and 10-year rates of lymphoma-specific mortality were both extremely low, at 0.4%, and the corresponding rates of competing nonlymphoma mortality at 5 and 10 years were 2.3% and 4.2%, also consistent with the general population.
The 5- and 10-year mortality rates remained similar to the general population in stratifying patients according to the initial treatment type (P = .767 between treatments).
In terms of recurrence, the overall failure rates were relatively high, with 19.5% of patients experiencing relapse at 5 years and 24.05% at 10 years.
“The failure rates show that the risk of relapse in POAML does not decrease over time,” Dr. Gao said.
Notably, those treated with radiation therapy had a significantly decreased 5-year cumulative risk of failure (8.5%), compared with those who only received observation (29.6%), surgery (22.9%), or systemic treatment (17.2%; overall, P = .002).
The most common failure site was the ipsilateral orbit, and again, rates of those relapses were significantly lower with radiation therapy (2.4%), compared with observation (23.5%), surgery (21.4%), and systemic treatment (17.3%).
However, rates of relapses in other sites, including the contralateral orbit, extraocular site, and multiple sites, were similar among all treatment groups. One patient receiving systemic treatment had large cell transformation, associated with poorer outcomes.
Strategies after recurrence were salvage therapy for 53 patients, including 27 receiving radiation therapy, and observation for 10 patients.
Dr. Gao noted that treatment failure was not associated with higher mortality rates. “However, given the limited number of cases, we think more cases and longer follow-up are needed,” she told MDedge.
Among the most common acute toxicities were ocular dermatitis or mucositis, described as mild, among 23 patients receiving radiation therapy. Nine patients experienced postoperative complications of mild eye irritation and periorbital edema, and five patients receiving systemic treatment experienced grade 2-3 leukopenia. There were no severe adverse events.
In terms of late ocular adverse effects, overall, 3 patients in the radiation therapy group developed cataracts and 143 patients developed dry-eye disease.
“Radiation therapy was associated with the lowest rate of relapse progression, compared with observation, surgery, and systemic treatment, with similar overall and recurrent survival,” Dr. Gao said.
“Based on our study results, radiotherapy should be considered as the optimal treatment for all patients with stage I disease because of its lowest failure risk and minor toxicity,” Dr. Gao told MDedge.
“However, the radiotherapy dose and techniques should be further optimized in good clinical trials,” she noted. “There are some clinical studies undergoing to explore the modern radiotherapy strategy, including by our group.”
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand, in Dijon, France, noted that “interestingly, radiotherapy reduced the risk of local relapse but not systemic relapse.”
Benefits linked to radiation therapy dose?
Furthermore, the study adds to evidence suggesting the role of dose in radiation therapy’s benefits in POAML, Dr. Casanovas noted. He pointed to previous research showing that, with a median radiotherapy dose of 26 Gy, stage I POAML patients had a local relapse rate of 9.5%, whereas in the current study, which reported a median radiotherapy dose of 30.6 Gy, the local relapse rate was just 2%.
“Regarding the risk of local relapse, it’s important to see that, as previous published, the risk of a local relapse depends probably on the dose of radiotherapy,” he said.
The results indicate that “radiation therapy could impact patients’ outcome. In comparison to previous research, this suggests benefits from a higher dose.”
He added that “it would be interesting to test in this series if patients receiving more or less 30 Gy had different outcomes or the risks of failure at different sites.”
Overall, the study confirms that POAML “can be safely treated with radiation therapy, which allows for a better chance of local control, compared with other options, but does not preclude relapse over time,” Dr. Casasnovas concluded, adding, “I think that a standardization of radiotherapy dose is warranted to provide guidelines to clinicians treating this infrequent population of patients.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
“Our study represents the largest institutional cohort analysis on the course of patients with stage I POAML,” said first author Linrui Gao, MD, of the department of radiation oncology at the National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Dr. Gao presented these findings at ESMO 2023, held in Madrid.
“We confirm the indolent nature of this stage I disease, with mortality that is similar to the general population and a low rate of lymphoma-attributed mortality,” she said, adding that “radiation therapy was associated with the lowest relapse or disease progression, compared with [other treatments].”
POAML, which can involve lesions in areas including the eyelid, conjunctiva, orbit, and lacrimal gland, makes up about 7% of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas. However, the incidence is reported to be steadily increasing. With the majority of patients, 70%-85%, diagnosed as stage I, consensus on treatment approaches is lacking.
Guidelines typically recommend radiation therapy as the standard of care, and approximately 70% of POAML patients do receive the therapy, compared with only about 36% of those with early-stage MALT lymphoma, with the indolent nature of the disease likely weighing on decisions to forgo the treatment, Dr. Gao reported.
“Adoption of initial radiotherapy in early-stage POAML is relatively low worldwide, with possible reasons being [concerns] of a low survival benefit and long-term toxicities,” she said.
To evaluate the long-term outcomes based on baseline clinical features and treatments, Dr. Gao and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 262 patients with stage I POAML (ipsilateral or bilateral disease), enrolled between January 2000 and December 2020 at two hospitals in China.
Of the patients, who had a median age of 55 and a male-female ratio of 1:3, 82 were initially treated with radiation therapy, 81 with observation, 70 with surgery, and 29 with systemic treatment.
Those receiving radiation therapy had higher rates of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or higher (P = .02), higher elevations of LDH (P = .03), and higher rates of chronic disease (P < .001), while other baseline characteristics between the groups, including age, T stage, symptom duration, and other factors, were similar.
With a median follow-up of 66 months, the 5-year and 10-year overall survival rates were 96.8% and 90%, respectively, which is similar to the survival rate in the general population in China.
Likewise, the 5- and 10-year rates of lymphoma-specific mortality were both extremely low, at 0.4%, and the corresponding rates of competing nonlymphoma mortality at 5 and 10 years were 2.3% and 4.2%, also consistent with the general population.
The 5- and 10-year mortality rates remained similar to the general population in stratifying patients according to the initial treatment type (P = .767 between treatments).
In terms of recurrence, the overall failure rates were relatively high, with 19.5% of patients experiencing relapse at 5 years and 24.05% at 10 years.
“The failure rates show that the risk of relapse in POAML does not decrease over time,” Dr. Gao said.
Notably, those treated with radiation therapy had a significantly decreased 5-year cumulative risk of failure (8.5%), compared with those who only received observation (29.6%), surgery (22.9%), or systemic treatment (17.2%; overall, P = .002).
The most common failure site was the ipsilateral orbit, and again, rates of those relapses were significantly lower with radiation therapy (2.4%), compared with observation (23.5%), surgery (21.4%), and systemic treatment (17.3%).
However, rates of relapses in other sites, including the contralateral orbit, extraocular site, and multiple sites, were similar among all treatment groups. One patient receiving systemic treatment had large cell transformation, associated with poorer outcomes.
Strategies after recurrence were salvage therapy for 53 patients, including 27 receiving radiation therapy, and observation for 10 patients.
Dr. Gao noted that treatment failure was not associated with higher mortality rates. “However, given the limited number of cases, we think more cases and longer follow-up are needed,” she told MDedge.
Among the most common acute toxicities were ocular dermatitis or mucositis, described as mild, among 23 patients receiving radiation therapy. Nine patients experienced postoperative complications of mild eye irritation and periorbital edema, and five patients receiving systemic treatment experienced grade 2-3 leukopenia. There were no severe adverse events.
In terms of late ocular adverse effects, overall, 3 patients in the radiation therapy group developed cataracts and 143 patients developed dry-eye disease.
“Radiation therapy was associated with the lowest rate of relapse progression, compared with observation, surgery, and systemic treatment, with similar overall and recurrent survival,” Dr. Gao said.
“Based on our study results, radiotherapy should be considered as the optimal treatment for all patients with stage I disease because of its lowest failure risk and minor toxicity,” Dr. Gao told MDedge.
“However, the radiotherapy dose and techniques should be further optimized in good clinical trials,” she noted. “There are some clinical studies undergoing to explore the modern radiotherapy strategy, including by our group.”
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand, in Dijon, France, noted that “interestingly, radiotherapy reduced the risk of local relapse but not systemic relapse.”
Benefits linked to radiation therapy dose?
Furthermore, the study adds to evidence suggesting the role of dose in radiation therapy’s benefits in POAML, Dr. Casanovas noted. He pointed to previous research showing that, with a median radiotherapy dose of 26 Gy, stage I POAML patients had a local relapse rate of 9.5%, whereas in the current study, which reported a median radiotherapy dose of 30.6 Gy, the local relapse rate was just 2%.
“Regarding the risk of local relapse, it’s important to see that, as previous published, the risk of a local relapse depends probably on the dose of radiotherapy,” he said.
The results indicate that “radiation therapy could impact patients’ outcome. In comparison to previous research, this suggests benefits from a higher dose.”
He added that “it would be interesting to test in this series if patients receiving more or less 30 Gy had different outcomes or the risks of failure at different sites.”
Overall, the study confirms that POAML “can be safely treated with radiation therapy, which allows for a better chance of local control, compared with other options, but does not preclude relapse over time,” Dr. Casasnovas concluded, adding, “I think that a standardization of radiotherapy dose is warranted to provide guidelines to clinicians treating this infrequent population of patients.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
“Our study represents the largest institutional cohort analysis on the course of patients with stage I POAML,” said first author Linrui Gao, MD, of the department of radiation oncology at the National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Dr. Gao presented these findings at ESMO 2023, held in Madrid.
“We confirm the indolent nature of this stage I disease, with mortality that is similar to the general population and a low rate of lymphoma-attributed mortality,” she said, adding that “radiation therapy was associated with the lowest relapse or disease progression, compared with [other treatments].”
POAML, which can involve lesions in areas including the eyelid, conjunctiva, orbit, and lacrimal gland, makes up about 7% of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas. However, the incidence is reported to be steadily increasing. With the majority of patients, 70%-85%, diagnosed as stage I, consensus on treatment approaches is lacking.
Guidelines typically recommend radiation therapy as the standard of care, and approximately 70% of POAML patients do receive the therapy, compared with only about 36% of those with early-stage MALT lymphoma, with the indolent nature of the disease likely weighing on decisions to forgo the treatment, Dr. Gao reported.
“Adoption of initial radiotherapy in early-stage POAML is relatively low worldwide, with possible reasons being [concerns] of a low survival benefit and long-term toxicities,” she said.
To evaluate the long-term outcomes based on baseline clinical features and treatments, Dr. Gao and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 262 patients with stage I POAML (ipsilateral or bilateral disease), enrolled between January 2000 and December 2020 at two hospitals in China.
Of the patients, who had a median age of 55 and a male-female ratio of 1:3, 82 were initially treated with radiation therapy, 81 with observation, 70 with surgery, and 29 with systemic treatment.
Those receiving radiation therapy had higher rates of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or higher (P = .02), higher elevations of LDH (P = .03), and higher rates of chronic disease (P < .001), while other baseline characteristics between the groups, including age, T stage, symptom duration, and other factors, were similar.
With a median follow-up of 66 months, the 5-year and 10-year overall survival rates were 96.8% and 90%, respectively, which is similar to the survival rate in the general population in China.
Likewise, the 5- and 10-year rates of lymphoma-specific mortality were both extremely low, at 0.4%, and the corresponding rates of competing nonlymphoma mortality at 5 and 10 years were 2.3% and 4.2%, also consistent with the general population.
The 5- and 10-year mortality rates remained similar to the general population in stratifying patients according to the initial treatment type (P = .767 between treatments).
In terms of recurrence, the overall failure rates were relatively high, with 19.5% of patients experiencing relapse at 5 years and 24.05% at 10 years.
“The failure rates show that the risk of relapse in POAML does not decrease over time,” Dr. Gao said.
Notably, those treated with radiation therapy had a significantly decreased 5-year cumulative risk of failure (8.5%), compared with those who only received observation (29.6%), surgery (22.9%), or systemic treatment (17.2%; overall, P = .002).
The most common failure site was the ipsilateral orbit, and again, rates of those relapses were significantly lower with radiation therapy (2.4%), compared with observation (23.5%), surgery (21.4%), and systemic treatment (17.3%).
However, rates of relapses in other sites, including the contralateral orbit, extraocular site, and multiple sites, were similar among all treatment groups. One patient receiving systemic treatment had large cell transformation, associated with poorer outcomes.
Strategies after recurrence were salvage therapy for 53 patients, including 27 receiving radiation therapy, and observation for 10 patients.
Dr. Gao noted that treatment failure was not associated with higher mortality rates. “However, given the limited number of cases, we think more cases and longer follow-up are needed,” she told MDedge.
Among the most common acute toxicities were ocular dermatitis or mucositis, described as mild, among 23 patients receiving radiation therapy. Nine patients experienced postoperative complications of mild eye irritation and periorbital edema, and five patients receiving systemic treatment experienced grade 2-3 leukopenia. There were no severe adverse events.
In terms of late ocular adverse effects, overall, 3 patients in the radiation therapy group developed cataracts and 143 patients developed dry-eye disease.
“Radiation therapy was associated with the lowest rate of relapse progression, compared with observation, surgery, and systemic treatment, with similar overall and recurrent survival,” Dr. Gao said.
“Based on our study results, radiotherapy should be considered as the optimal treatment for all patients with stage I disease because of its lowest failure risk and minor toxicity,” Dr. Gao told MDedge.
“However, the radiotherapy dose and techniques should be further optimized in good clinical trials,” she noted. “There are some clinical studies undergoing to explore the modern radiotherapy strategy, including by our group.”
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand, in Dijon, France, noted that “interestingly, radiotherapy reduced the risk of local relapse but not systemic relapse.”
Benefits linked to radiation therapy dose?
Furthermore, the study adds to evidence suggesting the role of dose in radiation therapy’s benefits in POAML, Dr. Casanovas noted. He pointed to previous research showing that, with a median radiotherapy dose of 26 Gy, stage I POAML patients had a local relapse rate of 9.5%, whereas in the current study, which reported a median radiotherapy dose of 30.6 Gy, the local relapse rate was just 2%.
“Regarding the risk of local relapse, it’s important to see that, as previous published, the risk of a local relapse depends probably on the dose of radiotherapy,” he said.
The results indicate that “radiation therapy could impact patients’ outcome. In comparison to previous research, this suggests benefits from a higher dose.”
He added that “it would be interesting to test in this series if patients receiving more or less 30 Gy had different outcomes or the risks of failure at different sites.”
Overall, the study confirms that POAML “can be safely treated with radiation therapy, which allows for a better chance of local control, compared with other options, but does not preclude relapse over time,” Dr. Casasnovas concluded, adding, “I think that a standardization of radiotherapy dose is warranted to provide guidelines to clinicians treating this infrequent population of patients.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
FROM ESMO 2023