Oncology Practice

MONTREAL – Levels of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) may be a biomarker of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN), new research suggests.

Investigators found Nfl levels increased in cancer patients following a first infusion of the medication paclitaxel and corresponded to neuropathy severity 6-12 months post-treatment, suggesting the blood protein may provide an early CIPN biomarker.

“Nfl after a single cycle could detect axonal degeneration,” said lead investigator Masarra Joda, a researcher and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney in Australia. She added that “quantification of Nfl may provide a clinically useful marker of emerging neurotoxicity in patients vulnerable to CIPN.”

The findings were presented at the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Common, Burdensome Side Effect

A common side effect of chemotherapy, CIPN manifests as sensory neuropathy and causes degeneration of the peripheral axons. A protein biomarker of axonal degeneration, Nfl has previously been investigated as a way of identifying patients at risk of CIPN.

The goal of the current study was to identify the potential link between Nfl with neurophysiological markers of axon degeneration in patients receiving the neurotoxin chemotherapy paclitaxel.

The study included 93 cancer patients. All were assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of treatment. CIPN was assessed using blood samples of Nfl and the Total Neuropathy Score (TNS), the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) neuropathy scale, and patient-reported measures using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Module (EORTC-CIPN20).

Axonal degeneration was measured with neurophysiological tests including sural nerve compound sensory action potential (CSAP) for the lower limbs, and sensory median nerve CSAP, as well as stimulus threshold testing, for the upper limbs. 

Almost all of study participants (97%) were female. The majority (66%) had breast cancer and 30% had gynecological cancer. Most (73%) were receiving a weekly regimen of paclitaxel, and the remainder were treated with taxanes plus platinum once every 3 weeks. By the end of treatment, 82% of the patients had developed CIPN, which was mild in 44% and moderate/severe in 38%. 

Nfl levels increased significantly from baseline to after the first dose of chemotherapy (P < .001), “highlighting that nerve damage occurs from the very beginning of treatment,” senior investigator Susanna Park, PhD, told this news organization. 

In addition, “patients with higher Nfl levels after a single paclitaxel treatment had greater neuropathy at the end of treatment (higher EORTC scores [P ≤ .026], and higher TNS scores [P ≤ .00]),” added Dr. Park, who is associate professor at the University of Sydney.

“Importantly, we also looked at long-term outcomes beyond the end of chemotherapy, because chronic neuropathy produces a significant burden in cancer survivors,” said Dr. Park. 

“Among a total of 44 patients who completed the 6- to 12-month post-treatment follow-up, NfL levels after a single treatment were linked to severity of nerve damage quantified with neurophysiological tests, and greater Nfl levels at mid-treatment were correlated with worse patient and neurologically graded neuropathy at 6-12 months.”

Dr. Park said the results suggest that NfL may provide a biomarker of long-term axon damage and that Nfl assays “may enable clinicians to evaluate the risk of long-term toxicity early during paclitaxel treatment to hopefully provide clinically significant information to guide better treatment titration.” 

Currently, she said, CIPN is a prominent cause of dose reduction and early chemotherapy cessation. 

“For example, in early breast cancer around 25% of patients experience a dose reduction due to the severity of neuropathy symptoms.” But, she said, “there is no standardized way of identifying which patients are at risk of long-term neuropathy and therefore, may benefit more from dose reduction. In this setting, a biomarker such as Nfl could provide oncologists with more information about the risk of long-term toxicity and take that into account in dose decision-making.” 

For some cancers, she added, there are multiple potential therapy options.

“A biomarker such as NfL could assist in determining risk-benefit profile in terms of switching to alternate therapies. However, further studies will be needed to fully define the utility of NfL as a biomarker of paclitaxel neuropathy.” 
 

Promising Research

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Maryam Lustberg, MD, associate professor, director of the Center for Breast Cancer at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, and chief of Breast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, in New Haven, Connecticut, said the study “builds on a body of work previously reported by others showing that neurofilament light chains as detected in the blood can be associated with early signs of neurotoxic injury.” 

She added that the research “is promising, since existing clinical and patient-reported measures tend to under-detect chemotherapy-induced neuropathy until more permanent injury might have occurred.” 

Dr. Lustberg, who is immediate past president of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, said future studies are needed before Nfl testing can be implemented in routine practice, but that “early detection will allow earlier initiation of supportive care strategies such as physical therapy and exercise, as well as dose modifications, which may be helpful for preventing permanent damage and improving quality of life.” 

The investigators and Dr. Lustberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Levels of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) may be a biomarker of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN), new research suggests.

Investigators found Nfl levels increased in cancer patients following a first infusion of the medication paclitaxel and corresponded to neuropathy severity 6-12 months post-treatment, suggesting the blood protein may provide an early CIPN biomarker.

“Nfl after a single cycle could detect axonal degeneration,” said lead investigator Masarra Joda, a researcher and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney in Australia. She added that “quantification of Nfl may provide a clinically useful marker of emerging neurotoxicity in patients vulnerable to CIPN.”

The findings were presented at the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Common, Burdensome Side Effect

A common side effect of chemotherapy, CIPN manifests as sensory neuropathy and causes degeneration of the peripheral axons. A protein biomarker of axonal degeneration, Nfl has previously been investigated as a way of identifying patients at risk of CIPN.

The goal of the current study was to identify the potential link between Nfl with neurophysiological markers of axon degeneration in patients receiving the neurotoxin chemotherapy paclitaxel.

The study included 93 cancer patients. All were assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of treatment. CIPN was assessed using blood samples of Nfl and the Total Neuropathy Score (TNS), the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) neuropathy scale, and patient-reported measures using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Module (EORTC-CIPN20).

Axonal degeneration was measured with neurophysiological tests including sural nerve compound sensory action potential (CSAP) for the lower limbs, and sensory median nerve CSAP, as well as stimulus threshold testing, for the upper limbs. 

Almost all of study participants (97%) were female. The majority (66%) had breast cancer and 30% had gynecological cancer. Most (73%) were receiving a weekly regimen of paclitaxel, and the remainder were treated with taxanes plus platinum once every 3 weeks. By the end of treatment, 82% of the patients had developed CIPN, which was mild in 44% and moderate/severe in 38%. 

Nfl levels increased significantly from baseline to after the first dose of chemotherapy (P < .001), “highlighting that nerve damage occurs from the very beginning of treatment,” senior investigator Susanna Park, PhD, told this news organization. 

In addition, “patients with higher Nfl levels after a single paclitaxel treatment had greater neuropathy at the end of treatment (higher EORTC scores [P ≤ .026], and higher TNS scores [P ≤ .00]),” added Dr. Park, who is associate professor at the University of Sydney.

“Importantly, we also looked at long-term outcomes beyond the end of chemotherapy, because chronic neuropathy produces a significant burden in cancer survivors,” said Dr. Park. 

“Among a total of 44 patients who completed the 6- to 12-month post-treatment follow-up, NfL levels after a single treatment were linked to severity of nerve damage quantified with neurophysiological tests, and greater Nfl levels at mid-treatment were correlated with worse patient and neurologically graded neuropathy at 6-12 months.”

Dr. Park said the results suggest that NfL may provide a biomarker of long-term axon damage and that Nfl assays “may enable clinicians to evaluate the risk of long-term toxicity early during paclitaxel treatment to hopefully provide clinically significant information to guide better treatment titration.” 

Currently, she said, CIPN is a prominent cause of dose reduction and early chemotherapy cessation. 

“For example, in early breast cancer around 25% of patients experience a dose reduction due to the severity of neuropathy symptoms.” But, she said, “there is no standardized way of identifying which patients are at risk of long-term neuropathy and therefore, may benefit more from dose reduction. In this setting, a biomarker such as Nfl could provide oncologists with more information about the risk of long-term toxicity and take that into account in dose decision-making.” 

For some cancers, she added, there are multiple potential therapy options.

“A biomarker such as NfL could assist in determining risk-benefit profile in terms of switching to alternate therapies. However, further studies will be needed to fully define the utility of NfL as a biomarker of paclitaxel neuropathy.” 
 

Promising Research

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Maryam Lustberg, MD, associate professor, director of the Center for Breast Cancer at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, and chief of Breast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, in New Haven, Connecticut, said the study “builds on a body of work previously reported by others showing that neurofilament light chains as detected in the blood can be associated with early signs of neurotoxic injury.” 

She added that the research “is promising, since existing clinical and patient-reported measures tend to under-detect chemotherapy-induced neuropathy until more permanent injury might have occurred.” 

Dr. Lustberg, who is immediate past president of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, said future studies are needed before Nfl testing can be implemented in routine practice, but that “early detection will allow earlier initiation of supportive care strategies such as physical therapy and exercise, as well as dose modifications, which may be helpful for preventing permanent damage and improving quality of life.” 

The investigators and Dr. Lustberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Levels of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) may be a biomarker of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN), new research suggests.

Investigators found Nfl levels increased in cancer patients following a first infusion of the medication paclitaxel and corresponded to neuropathy severity 6-12 months post-treatment, suggesting the blood protein may provide an early CIPN biomarker.

“Nfl after a single cycle could detect axonal degeneration,” said lead investigator Masarra Joda, a researcher and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney in Australia. She added that “quantification of Nfl may provide a clinically useful marker of emerging neurotoxicity in patients vulnerable to CIPN.”

The findings were presented at the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Common, Burdensome Side Effect

A common side effect of chemotherapy, CIPN manifests as sensory neuropathy and causes degeneration of the peripheral axons. A protein biomarker of axonal degeneration, Nfl has previously been investigated as a way of identifying patients at risk of CIPN.

The goal of the current study was to identify the potential link between Nfl with neurophysiological markers of axon degeneration in patients receiving the neurotoxin chemotherapy paclitaxel.

The study included 93 cancer patients. All were assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of treatment. CIPN was assessed using blood samples of Nfl and the Total Neuropathy Score (TNS), the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) neuropathy scale, and patient-reported measures using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Module (EORTC-CIPN20).

Axonal degeneration was measured with neurophysiological tests including sural nerve compound sensory action potential (CSAP) for the lower limbs, and sensory median nerve CSAP, as well as stimulus threshold testing, for the upper limbs. 

Almost all of study participants (97%) were female. The majority (66%) had breast cancer and 30% had gynecological cancer. Most (73%) were receiving a weekly regimen of paclitaxel, and the remainder were treated with taxanes plus platinum once every 3 weeks. By the end of treatment, 82% of the patients had developed CIPN, which was mild in 44% and moderate/severe in 38%. 

Nfl levels increased significantly from baseline to after the first dose of chemotherapy (P < .001), “highlighting that nerve damage occurs from the very beginning of treatment,” senior investigator Susanna Park, PhD, told this news organization. 

In addition, “patients with higher Nfl levels after a single paclitaxel treatment had greater neuropathy at the end of treatment (higher EORTC scores [P ≤ .026], and higher TNS scores [P ≤ .00]),” added Dr. Park, who is associate professor at the University of Sydney.

“Importantly, we also looked at long-term outcomes beyond the end of chemotherapy, because chronic neuropathy produces a significant burden in cancer survivors,” said Dr. Park. 

“Among a total of 44 patients who completed the 6- to 12-month post-treatment follow-up, NfL levels after a single treatment were linked to severity of nerve damage quantified with neurophysiological tests, and greater Nfl levels at mid-treatment were correlated with worse patient and neurologically graded neuropathy at 6-12 months.”

Dr. Park said the results suggest that NfL may provide a biomarker of long-term axon damage and that Nfl assays “may enable clinicians to evaluate the risk of long-term toxicity early during paclitaxel treatment to hopefully provide clinically significant information to guide better treatment titration.” 

Currently, she said, CIPN is a prominent cause of dose reduction and early chemotherapy cessation. 

“For example, in early breast cancer around 25% of patients experience a dose reduction due to the severity of neuropathy symptoms.” But, she said, “there is no standardized way of identifying which patients are at risk of long-term neuropathy and therefore, may benefit more from dose reduction. In this setting, a biomarker such as Nfl could provide oncologists with more information about the risk of long-term toxicity and take that into account in dose decision-making.” 

For some cancers, she added, there are multiple potential therapy options.

“A biomarker such as NfL could assist in determining risk-benefit profile in terms of switching to alternate therapies. However, further studies will be needed to fully define the utility of NfL as a biomarker of paclitaxel neuropathy.” 
 

Promising Research

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Maryam Lustberg, MD, associate professor, director of the Center for Breast Cancer at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, and chief of Breast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, in New Haven, Connecticut, said the study “builds on a body of work previously reported by others showing that neurofilament light chains as detected in the blood can be associated with early signs of neurotoxic injury.” 

She added that the research “is promising, since existing clinical and patient-reported measures tend to under-detect chemotherapy-induced neuropathy until more permanent injury might have occurred.” 

Dr. Lustberg, who is immediate past president of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, said future studies are needed before Nfl testing can be implemented in routine practice, but that “early detection will allow earlier initiation of supportive care strategies such as physical therapy and exercise, as well as dose modifications, which may be helpful for preventing permanent damage and improving quality of life.” 

The investigators and Dr. Lustberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treatment Intensification and QoL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBT for Managing ADT Side Effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QoL With Radioligand Crossover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treatment Intensification and QoL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBT for Managing ADT Side Effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QoL With Radioligand Crossover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treatment Intensification and QoL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBT for Managing ADT Side Effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QoL With Radioligand Crossover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ESOPEC trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ESOPEC trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ESOPEC trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

For patients with early multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are ineligible for liver transplant, liver resection provides a survival advantage over percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

METHODOLOGY:

• The presentation of HCC is often multinodular — meaning patients have two or three nodules measuring ≤ 3 cm each. Although liver resection is considered the gold standard curative treatment for early-stage disease, experts debate its efficacy in multinodular HCC, researchers explained.
• Using two large Italian registries with data from multiple centers, researchers compared the efficacy of liver resection, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, and TACE in 720 patients with early multinodular HCC. Overall, 296 patients underwent liver resection, 240 had percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, and 184 underwent TACE.
• To avoid crossovers between groups, the researchers considered liver resection, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, and TACE the main treatments in each population in a hierarchical order. That meant, in the liver resection group, researchers excluded patients undergoing a superior treatment during the follow-up, such as liver transplant. In the ablation group, patients undergoing surgery to treat HCC recurrences were excluded.
• The primary outcome was overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years. The researchers used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to balance data and control for confounding factors between the three treatment groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• After MAIC adjustment, the survival rate at 1 year was slightly lower in the liver resection group — 89% vs 94% in the ablation group and 91% in the TACE group. However, at 3 and 5 years, survival rates were better in the liver resection group — 71% at 3 years and 56% at 5 years vs 65% and 40%, respectively, in the ablation group and 49% and 29%, respectively, in the TACE group.
• Median overall survival was 69 months with liver resection, 54 months with ablation, and 34 months with TACE. Multivariable Cox survival analysis confirmed a significantly higher mortality risk with ablation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; P = .01) and TACE (HR, 1.86; P = .001) than with liver resection.
• In competing risk analyses, patients who underwent liver resection had a lower risk for HCC-related death than peers who had ablation (HR, 1.38; P = .07) or TACE (HR, 1.91; P = .006).
• In a subgroup survival analysis of patients with Child-Pugh class B cirrhosis, liver resection provided significantly better overall survival than TACE (HR, 2.79; P = .001) and higher overall survival than ablation (HR, 1.44; P = .21), but these findings were not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“The main result of the current study is the indisputable superiority” of liver resection over percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and TACE in patients with multinodular HCC, the researchers concluded. “For patients with early multinodular HCC who are ineligible for transplant, LR [liver resection] should be prioritized as the primary therapeutic option,” followed by percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and TACE, when resection is not feasible.

The authors of an invited commentary said the analysis provides “convincing” data that liver resection leads to superior 3- and 5-year survival. “All of our local therapies are getting better. Making each available under different clinical circumstances and combining these when appropriate provides patients with the best chance at cure with the least invasiveness,” the editorialists added.
 

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Alessandro Vitale, MD, PhD, with the Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University of Padova, Padua, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online last month in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

Selection bias cannot be ruled out due to potential hidden variables that were not collected in the centers’ databases. Not all patients included in the study were potentially treatable with all three proposed approaches. The study population was derived from Italian centers, which may have limited the generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study reported no specific funding. The authors reported various disclosures during the conduct of the study, including ties to AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Bayer, MSD, Roche, and Eisai. An editorialist reported ties to Medtronic, Theromics, Vergent Bioscience, Imugene, Sovato Health, XDemics, and Imugene.

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

TOPLINE:

For patients with early multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are ineligible for liver transplant, liver resection provides a survival advantage over percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

METHODOLOGY:

• The presentation of HCC is often multinodular — meaning patients have two or three nodules measuring ≤ 3 cm each. Although liver resection is considered the gold standard curative treatment for early-stage disease, experts debate its efficacy in multinodular HCC, researchers explained.
• Using two large Italian registries with data from multiple centers, researchers compared the efficacy of liver resection, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, and TACE in 720 patients with early multinodular HCC. Overall, 296 patients underwent liver resection, 240 had percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, and 184 underwent TACE.
• To avoid crossovers between groups, the researchers considered liver resection, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, and TACE the main treatments in each population in a hierarchical order. That meant, in the liver resection group, researchers excluded patients undergoing a superior treatment during the follow-up, such as liver transplant. In the ablation group, patients undergoing surgery to treat HCC recurrences were excluded.
• The primary outcome was overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years. The researchers used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to balance data and control for confounding factors between the three treatment groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• After MAIC adjustment, the survival rate at 1 year was slightly lower in the liver resection group — 89% vs 94% in the ablation group and 91% in the TACE group. However, at 3 and 5 years, survival rates were better in the liver resection group — 71% at 3 years and 56% at 5 years vs 65% and 40%, respectively, in the ablation group and 49% and 29%, respectively, in the TACE group.
• Median overall survival was 69 months with liver resection, 54 months with ablation, and 34 months with TACE. Multivariable Cox survival analysis confirmed a significantly higher mortality risk with ablation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; P = .01) and TACE (HR, 1.86; P = .001) than with liver resection.
• In competing risk analyses, patients who underwent liver resection had a lower risk for HCC-related death than peers who had ablation (HR, 1.38; P = .07) or TACE (HR, 1.91; P = .006).
• In a subgroup survival analysis of patients with Child-Pugh class B cirrhosis, liver resection provided significantly better overall survival than TACE (HR, 2.79; P = .001) and higher overall survival than ablation (HR, 1.44; P = .21), but these findings were not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“The main result of the current study is the indisputable superiority” of liver resection over percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and TACE in patients with multinodular HCC, the researchers concluded. “For patients with early multinodular HCC who are ineligible for transplant, LR [liver resection] should be prioritized as the primary therapeutic option,” followed by percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and TACE, when resection is not feasible.

The authors of an invited commentary said the analysis provides “convincing” data that liver resection leads to superior 3- and 5-year survival. “All of our local therapies are getting better. Making each available under different clinical circumstances and combining these when appropriate provides patients with the best chance at cure with the least invasiveness,” the editorialists added.
 

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Alessandro Vitale, MD, PhD, with the Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University of Padova, Padua, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online last month in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

Selection bias cannot be ruled out due to potential hidden variables that were not collected in the centers’ databases. Not all patients included in the study were potentially treatable with all three proposed approaches. The study population was derived from Italian centers, which may have limited the generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study reported no specific funding. The authors reported various disclosures during the conduct of the study, including ties to AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Bayer, MSD, Roche, and Eisai. An editorialist reported ties to Medtronic, Theromics, Vergent Bioscience, Imugene, Sovato Health, XDemics, and Imugene.

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

TOPLINE:

For patients with early multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are ineligible for liver transplant, liver resection provides a survival advantage over percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

METHODOLOGY:

• The presentation of HCC is often multinodular — meaning patients have two or three nodules measuring ≤ 3 cm each. Although liver resection is considered the gold standard curative treatment for early-stage disease, experts debate its efficacy in multinodular HCC, researchers explained.
• Using two large Italian registries with data from multiple centers, researchers compared the efficacy of liver resection, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, and TACE in 720 patients with early multinodular HCC. Overall, 296 patients underwent liver resection, 240 had percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, and 184 underwent TACE.
• To avoid crossovers between groups, the researchers considered liver resection, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, and TACE the main treatments in each population in a hierarchical order. That meant, in the liver resection group, researchers excluded patients undergoing a superior treatment during the follow-up, such as liver transplant. In the ablation group, patients undergoing surgery to treat HCC recurrences were excluded.
• The primary outcome was overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years. The researchers used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to balance data and control for confounding factors between the three treatment groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• After MAIC adjustment, the survival rate at 1 year was slightly lower in the liver resection group — 89% vs 94% in the ablation group and 91% in the TACE group. However, at 3 and 5 years, survival rates were better in the liver resection group — 71% at 3 years and 56% at 5 years vs 65% and 40%, respectively, in the ablation group and 49% and 29%, respectively, in the TACE group.
• Median overall survival was 69 months with liver resection, 54 months with ablation, and 34 months with TACE. Multivariable Cox survival analysis confirmed a significantly higher mortality risk with ablation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; P = .01) and TACE (HR, 1.86; P = .001) than with liver resection.
• In competing risk analyses, patients who underwent liver resection had a lower risk for HCC-related death than peers who had ablation (HR, 1.38; P = .07) or TACE (HR, 1.91; P = .006).
• In a subgroup survival analysis of patients with Child-Pugh class B cirrhosis, liver resection provided significantly better overall survival than TACE (HR, 2.79; P = .001) and higher overall survival than ablation (HR, 1.44; P = .21), but these findings were not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“The main result of the current study is the indisputable superiority” of liver resection over percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and TACE in patients with multinodular HCC, the researchers concluded. “For patients with early multinodular HCC who are ineligible for transplant, LR [liver resection] should be prioritized as the primary therapeutic option,” followed by percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and TACE, when resection is not feasible.

The authors of an invited commentary said the analysis provides “convincing” data that liver resection leads to superior 3- and 5-year survival. “All of our local therapies are getting better. Making each available under different clinical circumstances and combining these when appropriate provides patients with the best chance at cure with the least invasiveness,” the editorialists added.
 

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Alessandro Vitale, MD, PhD, with the Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University of Padova, Padua, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online last month in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

Selection bias cannot be ruled out due to potential hidden variables that were not collected in the centers’ databases. Not all patients included in the study were potentially treatable with all three proposed approaches. The study population was derived from Italian centers, which may have limited the generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study reported no specific funding. The authors reported various disclosures during the conduct of the study, including ties to AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Bayer, MSD, Roche, and Eisai. An editorialist reported ties to Medtronic, Theromics, Vergent Bioscience, Imugene, Sovato Health, XDemics, and Imugene.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

Open Access Defined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predatory Journals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

Open Access Defined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predatory Journals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

Open Access Defined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predatory Journals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

CHICAGO — Adding carboplatin to standard anthracycline/taxane treatment for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) improves event-free and overall survival in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, according to a phase 3 trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The outcomes of the South Korean study, dubbed PEARLY, provide strong evidence for incorporating carboplatin into both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in patients with early-stage TNBC, said lead investigator and presenter Joohyuk Sohn, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In early-stage TNBC, carboplatin is already being incorporated into the neoadjuvant setting on the basis of trial results from KEYNOTE-522 that demonstrated improved pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival with the platinum alongside pembrolizumab.

However, the overall survival benefit of carboplatin in this setting remains unclear, as does the benefit of platinum add-on in the adjuvant setting, Dr. Sohn explained.

Dr. Sohn and colleagues randomized 868 patients evenly to either standard treatment — doxorubicin, anthracycline, and cyclophosphamide followed by a taxane — or an experimental arm that added carboplatin to the taxane phase of treatment.

About 30% of women were treated in the adjuvant setting, the rest in the neoadjuvant setting. The two arms of the study were generally well balanced — about 80% of patients had stage II disease, half were node negative, and 11% had deleterious germline mutations.

The primary endpoint, event-free survival, was broadly defined. Events included disease progression, local or distant recurrence, occurrence of a second primary cancer, inoperable status after neoadjuvant therapy, or death from any cause.

Adding carboplatin increased 5-year event-free survival rates from 75.1% to 82.3% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; P = .012) with the benefit holding across various subgroup analyses and particularly strong for adjuvant carboplatin (HR, 0.26).

Five-year overall survival was also better in the carboplatin arm — 90.7% vs 87% in the control arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.02) — but that benefit did not reach statistical significance (P = .057)

Invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.73) and distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.77) favored carboplatin, but the results also weren’t statistically significant.

Overall, 46% of patients had a pathologic complete response with carboplatin vs nearly 40% in the control arm. The pathologic complete response benefit from carboplatin add-on was consistent with past reports.

As expected, adding carboplatin to treatment increased hematologic toxicity and other adverse events, with three-quarters of patients experiencing grade 3 or worse adverse events vs 56.7% of control participants. There was one death in the carboplatin arm from pneumonia and two in the control arm — one from septic shock and the other from suicide.

Dr. Sohn and colleagues, however, did not observe a quality of life difference between the two groups.

“The PEARLY trial provides compelling evidence for including carboplatin in the treatment of early-stage TNBC,” Dr. Sohn concluded, adding that the results underscore the benefit in the neoadjuvant setting and suggest “potential applicability in the adjuvant setting post surgery.”

Study discussant Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, believes that the PEARLY provides a strong signal for adding carboplatin in the adjuvant setting.

“That’s something I would do in my clinical practice,” said Dr. Cortes, head of the International Breast Cancer Center in Barcelona, Spain. “After ASCO this year, I would offer taxanes plus carboplatin following anthracyclines.”

An audience member, William Sikov, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said he hopes “we’ve reached the end of a road that started many years ago in terms of incorporating carboplatin as part of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer, where we finally [reach] consensus that this is necessary in our triple-negative patients.”

The work was funded by the government of South Korea and others. Dr. Sohn reported stock in Daiichi Sankyo and research funding from Daiichi and other companies. Dr. Cortes disclosed numerous industry ties, including honoraria, research funding, and/or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and others.

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

CHICAGO — Adding carboplatin to standard anthracycline/taxane treatment for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) improves event-free and overall survival in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, according to a phase 3 trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The outcomes of the South Korean study, dubbed PEARLY, provide strong evidence for incorporating carboplatin into both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in patients with early-stage TNBC, said lead investigator and presenter Joohyuk Sohn, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In early-stage TNBC, carboplatin is already being incorporated into the neoadjuvant setting on the basis of trial results from KEYNOTE-522 that demonstrated improved pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival with the platinum alongside pembrolizumab.

However, the overall survival benefit of carboplatin in this setting remains unclear, as does the benefit of platinum add-on in the adjuvant setting, Dr. Sohn explained.

Dr. Sohn and colleagues randomized 868 patients evenly to either standard treatment — doxorubicin, anthracycline, and cyclophosphamide followed by a taxane — or an experimental arm that added carboplatin to the taxane phase of treatment.

About 30% of women were treated in the adjuvant setting, the rest in the neoadjuvant setting. The two arms of the study were generally well balanced — about 80% of patients had stage II disease, half were node negative, and 11% had deleterious germline mutations.

The primary endpoint, event-free survival, was broadly defined. Events included disease progression, local or distant recurrence, occurrence of a second primary cancer, inoperable status after neoadjuvant therapy, or death from any cause.

Adding carboplatin increased 5-year event-free survival rates from 75.1% to 82.3% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; P = .012) with the benefit holding across various subgroup analyses and particularly strong for adjuvant carboplatin (HR, 0.26).

Five-year overall survival was also better in the carboplatin arm — 90.7% vs 87% in the control arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.02) — but that benefit did not reach statistical significance (P = .057)

Invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.73) and distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.77) favored carboplatin, but the results also weren’t statistically significant.

Overall, 46% of patients had a pathologic complete response with carboplatin vs nearly 40% in the control arm. The pathologic complete response benefit from carboplatin add-on was consistent with past reports.

As expected, adding carboplatin to treatment increased hematologic toxicity and other adverse events, with three-quarters of patients experiencing grade 3 or worse adverse events vs 56.7% of control participants. There was one death in the carboplatin arm from pneumonia and two in the control arm — one from septic shock and the other from suicide.

Dr. Sohn and colleagues, however, did not observe a quality of life difference between the two groups.

“The PEARLY trial provides compelling evidence for including carboplatin in the treatment of early-stage TNBC,” Dr. Sohn concluded, adding that the results underscore the benefit in the neoadjuvant setting and suggest “potential applicability in the adjuvant setting post surgery.”

Study discussant Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, believes that the PEARLY provides a strong signal for adding carboplatin in the adjuvant setting.

“That’s something I would do in my clinical practice,” said Dr. Cortes, head of the International Breast Cancer Center in Barcelona, Spain. “After ASCO this year, I would offer taxanes plus carboplatin following anthracyclines.”

An audience member, William Sikov, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said he hopes “we’ve reached the end of a road that started many years ago in terms of incorporating carboplatin as part of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer, where we finally [reach] consensus that this is necessary in our triple-negative patients.”

The work was funded by the government of South Korea and others. Dr. Sohn reported stock in Daiichi Sankyo and research funding from Daiichi and other companies. Dr. Cortes disclosed numerous industry ties, including honoraria, research funding, and/or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and others.

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

CHICAGO — Adding carboplatin to standard anthracycline/taxane treatment for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) improves event-free and overall survival in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, according to a phase 3 trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The outcomes of the South Korean study, dubbed PEARLY, provide strong evidence for incorporating carboplatin into both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in patients with early-stage TNBC, said lead investigator and presenter Joohyuk Sohn, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In early-stage TNBC, carboplatin is already being incorporated into the neoadjuvant setting on the basis of trial results from KEYNOTE-522 that demonstrated improved pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival with the platinum alongside pembrolizumab.

However, the overall survival benefit of carboplatin in this setting remains unclear, as does the benefit of platinum add-on in the adjuvant setting, Dr. Sohn explained.

Dr. Sohn and colleagues randomized 868 patients evenly to either standard treatment — doxorubicin, anthracycline, and cyclophosphamide followed by a taxane — or an experimental arm that added carboplatin to the taxane phase of treatment.

About 30% of women were treated in the adjuvant setting, the rest in the neoadjuvant setting. The two arms of the study were generally well balanced — about 80% of patients had stage II disease, half were node negative, and 11% had deleterious germline mutations.

The primary endpoint, event-free survival, was broadly defined. Events included disease progression, local or distant recurrence, occurrence of a second primary cancer, inoperable status after neoadjuvant therapy, or death from any cause.

Adding carboplatin increased 5-year event-free survival rates from 75.1% to 82.3% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; P = .012) with the benefit holding across various subgroup analyses and particularly strong for adjuvant carboplatin (HR, 0.26).

Five-year overall survival was also better in the carboplatin arm — 90.7% vs 87% in the control arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.02) — but that benefit did not reach statistical significance (P = .057)

Invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.73) and distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.77) favored carboplatin, but the results also weren’t statistically significant.

Overall, 46% of patients had a pathologic complete response with carboplatin vs nearly 40% in the control arm. The pathologic complete response benefit from carboplatin add-on was consistent with past reports.

As expected, adding carboplatin to treatment increased hematologic toxicity and other adverse events, with three-quarters of patients experiencing grade 3 or worse adverse events vs 56.7% of control participants. There was one death in the carboplatin arm from pneumonia and two in the control arm — one from septic shock and the other from suicide.

Dr. Sohn and colleagues, however, did not observe a quality of life difference between the two groups.

“The PEARLY trial provides compelling evidence for including carboplatin in the treatment of early-stage TNBC,” Dr. Sohn concluded, adding that the results underscore the benefit in the neoadjuvant setting and suggest “potential applicability in the adjuvant setting post surgery.”

Study discussant Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, believes that the PEARLY provides a strong signal for adding carboplatin in the adjuvant setting.

“That’s something I would do in my clinical practice,” said Dr. Cortes, head of the International Breast Cancer Center in Barcelona, Spain. “After ASCO this year, I would offer taxanes plus carboplatin following anthracyclines.”

An audience member, William Sikov, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said he hopes “we’ve reached the end of a road that started many years ago in terms of incorporating carboplatin as part of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer, where we finally [reach] consensus that this is necessary in our triple-negative patients.”

The work was funded by the government of South Korea and others. Dr. Sohn reported stock in Daiichi Sankyo and research funding from Daiichi and other companies. Dr. Cortes disclosed numerous industry ties, including honoraria, research funding, and/or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and others.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to adagrasib (Krazati, Mirati Therapeutics) with cetuximab for certain patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer (CRC).

More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.

The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.

The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients. 

All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.

Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m² dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m² followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m². Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.

The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information. 

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.

“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.

“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to adagrasib (Krazati, Mirati Therapeutics) with cetuximab for certain patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer (CRC).

More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.

The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.

The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients. 

All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.

Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m² dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m² followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m². Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.

The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information. 

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.

“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.

“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to adagrasib (Krazati, Mirati Therapeutics) with cetuximab for certain patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer (CRC).

More specifically, the highly selective and potent small-molecule KRAS G12C inhibitor is now indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C–mutated CRC — as determined by an FDA-approved test — who previously received fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and, if eligible, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, according to an FDA press release.

The agent is the first KRAS inhibitor approved for CRC. Adagrasib was previously granted accelerated approval for KRAS G12C–mutated non–small cell lung cancer, based on findings from the KRYSTAL-12 trial.

The CRC approval was based on findings from the KRYSTAL-1 multicenter, single-arm expansion cohort trial, which reported an overall response rate of 34% among 94 enrolled patients. 

All responses were partial responses, and the median duration of response was 5.8 months, with 31% of responding patients experiencing a duration of response of at least 6 months.

Patients received 600 mg of adagrasib twice daily plus cetuximab administered in either a biweekly 500 mg/m² dose or an initial dose of 400 mg/m² followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m². Those who discontinued adagrasib also had to discontinue cetuximab, but adagrasib could be continued if cetuximab was discontinued.

The recommended adagrasib dose is 600 mg given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, according to the prescribing information. 

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of treated patients included rash, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, hepatotoxicity, headache, dry skin, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, edema, anemia, cough, dizziness, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy.

“Patients with KRAS G12C–mutated colorectal cancer have historically faced poor prognoses and remain in need of additional treatment options,” Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, stated earlier this year in a press release announcing the FDA’s decision to accept the drug application for priority review.

“Although KRAS had previously been considered ‘undruggable,’ these data from KRYSTAL-1 reinforce the potential benefit of adagrasib for these specific patients,” Dr. Kopetz said in the statement from Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Mirati Therapeutics in 2023.

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