User login
ASTRO Pushes Return to Direct Supervision in RT: Needed or ‘Babysitting’?
Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only.
Changes to Direct Supervision
Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control.
During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed.
CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule.
“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”
CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth.
What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?
Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care.
Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.
“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?
According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients.
But that might not be the case.
Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter.
Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.”
“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”
Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.
“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”
Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”
Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”
ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.
CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only.
Changes to Direct Supervision
Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control.
During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed.
CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule.
“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”
CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth.
What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?
Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care.
Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.
“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?
According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients.
But that might not be the case.
Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter.
Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.”
“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”
Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.
“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”
Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”
Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”
ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.
CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only.
Changes to Direct Supervision
Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control.
During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed.
CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule.
“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”
CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth.
What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?
Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care.
Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.
“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?
According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients.
But that might not be the case.
Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter.
Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.”
“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”
Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.
“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”
Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”
Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”
ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.
CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
FDA Removes Harmful Chemicals From Food Packaging
Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.
In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.
PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others
The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.
“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.
The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.
At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”
Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”
While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.
Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.
Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.
“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
New Data on Four Classes of EDCs
Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.
The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.
Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.
Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.
The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’
Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.
The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”
The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.
In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.
PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others
The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.
“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.
The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.
At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”
Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”
While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.
Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.
Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.
“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
New Data on Four Classes of EDCs
Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.
The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.
Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.
Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.
The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’
Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.
The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”
The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.
In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.
PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others
The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.
“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.
The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.
At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”
Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”
While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.
Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.
Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.
“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
New Data on Four Classes of EDCs
Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.
The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.
Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.
Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.
The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’
Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.
The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”
The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Doxorubicin Increases Breast Cancer Risk in Women With Hodgkin Lymphoma
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Doxorubicin is a mainstay of Hodgkin lymphoma treatment.
- Studies suggest that girls with Hodgkin lymphoma who receive doxorubicin have a higher risk for breast cancer later in life, but it is unclear if women treated as adults face that same risk.
- To find out, investigators reviewed breast cancer incidence in 1964 Dutch women, ages 15-50, who were treated for Hodgkin lymphoma from 1975 to 2008.
- Patients had survived for at least 5 years, and 57% received doxorubicin.
TAKEAWAY:
- Women treated with doxorubicin had a 40% higher risk for breast cancer, and that risk was independent of age of treatment, receipt of chest radiation, and the use of gonadotoxic agents.
- The risk for breast cancer with doxorubicin was dose-dependent, with each 100 mg/m2 dose increment increasing the risk by 18%.
- The findings held whether women were treated years ago or more recently, despite the evolution of treatment strategies for Hodgkin lymphoma.
- After 30 years of follow-up, nearly one in five survivors (20.8%) developed breast cancer. It took 20 years for the elevated risk for breast cancer following treatment with doxorubicin to emerge.
IN PRACTICE:
The study suggests that adolescent and adult women survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma who received doxorubicin have an increased risk for breast cancer, and this risk is independent of age at first Hodgkin lymphoma treatment, receipt of chest radiotherapy, and gonadotoxic treatment, the authors concluded. “Our results have implications for [breast cancer] surveillance guidelines for [Hodgkin lymphoma] survivors and treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed” Hodgkin lymphoma.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Suzanne Neppelenbroek of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published February 15 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Recruitment ended in 2008 before the advent of newer treatments such as antibody-drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors.
DISCLOSURES:
The work was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. Several authors reported ties to Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Doxorubicin is a mainstay of Hodgkin lymphoma treatment.
- Studies suggest that girls with Hodgkin lymphoma who receive doxorubicin have a higher risk for breast cancer later in life, but it is unclear if women treated as adults face that same risk.
- To find out, investigators reviewed breast cancer incidence in 1964 Dutch women, ages 15-50, who were treated for Hodgkin lymphoma from 1975 to 2008.
- Patients had survived for at least 5 years, and 57% received doxorubicin.
TAKEAWAY:
- Women treated with doxorubicin had a 40% higher risk for breast cancer, and that risk was independent of age of treatment, receipt of chest radiation, and the use of gonadotoxic agents.
- The risk for breast cancer with doxorubicin was dose-dependent, with each 100 mg/m2 dose increment increasing the risk by 18%.
- The findings held whether women were treated years ago or more recently, despite the evolution of treatment strategies for Hodgkin lymphoma.
- After 30 years of follow-up, nearly one in five survivors (20.8%) developed breast cancer. It took 20 years for the elevated risk for breast cancer following treatment with doxorubicin to emerge.
IN PRACTICE:
The study suggests that adolescent and adult women survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma who received doxorubicin have an increased risk for breast cancer, and this risk is independent of age at first Hodgkin lymphoma treatment, receipt of chest radiotherapy, and gonadotoxic treatment, the authors concluded. “Our results have implications for [breast cancer] surveillance guidelines for [Hodgkin lymphoma] survivors and treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed” Hodgkin lymphoma.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Suzanne Neppelenbroek of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published February 15 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Recruitment ended in 2008 before the advent of newer treatments such as antibody-drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors.
DISCLOSURES:
The work was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. Several authors reported ties to Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Doxorubicin is a mainstay of Hodgkin lymphoma treatment.
- Studies suggest that girls with Hodgkin lymphoma who receive doxorubicin have a higher risk for breast cancer later in life, but it is unclear if women treated as adults face that same risk.
- To find out, investigators reviewed breast cancer incidence in 1964 Dutch women, ages 15-50, who were treated for Hodgkin lymphoma from 1975 to 2008.
- Patients had survived for at least 5 years, and 57% received doxorubicin.
TAKEAWAY:
- Women treated with doxorubicin had a 40% higher risk for breast cancer, and that risk was independent of age of treatment, receipt of chest radiation, and the use of gonadotoxic agents.
- The risk for breast cancer with doxorubicin was dose-dependent, with each 100 mg/m2 dose increment increasing the risk by 18%.
- The findings held whether women were treated years ago or more recently, despite the evolution of treatment strategies for Hodgkin lymphoma.
- After 30 years of follow-up, nearly one in five survivors (20.8%) developed breast cancer. It took 20 years for the elevated risk for breast cancer following treatment with doxorubicin to emerge.
IN PRACTICE:
The study suggests that adolescent and adult women survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma who received doxorubicin have an increased risk for breast cancer, and this risk is independent of age at first Hodgkin lymphoma treatment, receipt of chest radiotherapy, and gonadotoxic treatment, the authors concluded. “Our results have implications for [breast cancer] surveillance guidelines for [Hodgkin lymphoma] survivors and treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed” Hodgkin lymphoma.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Suzanne Neppelenbroek of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published February 15 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Recruitment ended in 2008 before the advent of newer treatments such as antibody-drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors.
DISCLOSURES:
The work was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. Several authors reported ties to Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Are Food Emulsifiers Associated With Increased Cancer Risk?
Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives.
Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.
Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.
Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.
The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.
In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).
Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.
In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.
The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.
It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives.
Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.
Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.
Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.
The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.
In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).
Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.
In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.
The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.
It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives.
Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.
Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.
Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.
The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.
In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).
Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.
In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.
The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.
It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Democratic Lawmakers Press Pfizer on Chemotherapy Drug Shortages
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
Unleashing Our Immune Response to Quash Cancer
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs new agent to block chemotherapy-induced neutropenia
Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.
The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.
The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.
The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.
During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.
The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.
The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.
The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.
The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.
The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.
During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.
The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.
The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.
The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.
The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.
The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.
During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.
The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.
The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel voices concerns over 2 lymphoma accelerated approvals
At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.
“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.
Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.
The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.
Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.
Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.
The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.
The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.
For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.
At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.
“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
‘Dangerous precedent’
The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.
For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.
But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.
And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.
“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.
The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.
The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.
Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.
ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.
“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.
Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.
Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.
Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”
At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.
“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.
Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.
The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.
Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.
Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.
The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.
The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.
For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.
At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.
“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
‘Dangerous precedent’
The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.
For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.
But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.
And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.
“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.
The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.
The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.
Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.
ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.
“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.
Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.
Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.
Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”
At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.
“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.
Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.
The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.
Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.
Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.
The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.
The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.
For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.
At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.
“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
‘Dangerous precedent’
The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.
For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.
But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.
And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.
“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.
The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.
The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.
Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.
ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.
“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.
Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.
Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.
Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”
FDA’s Project Optimus aims to transform early cancer research
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
AT SITC 2023
Antibody shows promise in preventing GVHD
Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.
“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”
While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.
Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.
With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.
The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.
Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.
Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.
Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.
“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.
Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.
The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.
The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.
“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”
The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.
“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”
The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.
“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.
Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.
There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.
“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”
Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.
Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.
“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”
While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.
Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.
With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.
The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.
Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.
Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.
Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.
“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.
Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.
The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.
The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.
“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”
The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.
“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”
The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.
“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.
Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.
There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.
“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”
Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.
Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.
“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”
While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.
Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.
With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.
The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.
Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.
Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.
Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.
“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.
Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.
The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.
The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.
“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”
The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.
“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”
The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.
“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.
Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.
There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.
“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”
Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.
FROM SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE