Immunotherapy

The MUC-1 vaccine tecemotide plus standard neoadjuvant systemic therapy was shown to notably improve distant relapse-free survival and overall survival rates in breast cancer patients, in a new study.

“This is the first successful study of a breast cancer vaccine to date,” Christian F. Singer, MD, said during an interview. Dr. Singer, the lead author of the new study, presented the results during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously known as both liposomal BLP25 and Stimuvax, tecemotide is an antigen-specific immunotherapy that targets the cancer therapy–resistant MUC-1 glycoprotein, which is overexpressed in over 90% of breast cancers. Tecemotide also has been shown to moderately improve overall survival rates in non–small cell lung cancer.

“We are not at all surprised by the results of this study in breast cancer,” Gregory T. Wurz, PhD, senior researcher at RCU Labs in Lincoln, California, said in an interview.

Dr. Wurz is coauthor of several studies on peptide vaccines, including a mouse model study of human MUC-1–expressing mammary tumors showing that tecemotide combined with letrozole had additive antitumor activity. Another paper he coauthored showed that ospemifene enhanced the immune response to tecemotide in both tumor-bearing and non–tumor-bearing mice. These findings, combined with other research, led to the creation of a patented method of combining therapies to enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy in the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases. Dr. Wurz was not involved in the new research that Dr. Singer presented at ASCO.
 

Study Methods and Results

Dr. Singer, head of obstetrics and gynecology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, and coauthors randomized 400 patients with HER2-negative early breast cancer in a prospective, multicenter, two-arm, phase 2 ABCSG 34 trial to receive preoperative standard of care (SOC) neoadjuvant treatment with or without tecemotide.

Postmenopausal women with luminal A tumors were given 6 months of letrozole as SOC. Postmenopausal patients with triple-negative breast cancer, luminal B tumors, in whom chemotherapy was SOC, as well as all premenopausal study participants, were given four cycles of both epirubicin cyclophosphamide and docetaxel every 3 weeks.

The study’s primary endpoint was the residual cancer burden at the time of surgery.

Long-term outcomes were measured as part of a translational project, while distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with Cox regression models. Long-term outcome data were available for 291 women, of whom 236 had received chemotherapy as SOC.

While tecemotide plus neoadjuvant SOC was not associated with a significant increase in residual cancer burden (RCB) at the time of surgery (36.4% vs 31.5%; P = .42; 40.5% vs 34.8%; P = .37 for the chemotherapy-only cohort), follow-up at 7 years showed 80.8% of patients who had received SOC plus tecemotide were still alive and free from metastasis.

In patients who had received SOC alone, the OS rate at 7 years with no metastasis was 64.7% (hazard ratio [HR] for DRFS, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83; P = .005). The OS rate for the study group was 83.0% vs 68.2% in the non-tecemotide cohort (HR for OS, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.85; P = .008).

The lack of RCB signal at the endpoints, “tells us that pathologic complete response and residual cancer burden simply are not adequate endpoints for cancer vaccination studies and we need to find other predictive/prognostic markers, said Dr. Singer. “We are currently looking into this in exploratory studies.”

The chemotherapy plus tecemotide cohort had a notable outcome with a DRFS of 81.9% vs 65.0% in the SOC group (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.83; P = .007), and an OS rate of 83.6% vs 67.8% (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.88; P = .016).

Dr. Singer characterized the HRs as intriguing, saying that they “pave the way for new trials.”
 

Ideas for Further Study of Tecemotide

“What we would like to see next for tecemotide are clinical studies that explore whether immunomodulatory agents can further enhance the response to tecemotide in lung, breast, and potentially other MUC-1–expressing cancers,” Dr. Wurz said.

Future phase 3 studies of MUC-1 cancer vaccines, possibly those using mRNA technology, are yet to come, according to Dr. Singer. “We also need to find out why the vaccine works sometimes and sometimes not.”

Dr. Singer disclosed financial ties to AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Sanofi/Aventis, Amgen, Myriad Genetics, and Roche. Dr. Wurz had no disclosures, but his research partner and founder of RCU Labs, Michael De Gregorio, is the sole inventor of the patent referenced in the story. That patent has been assigned to the Regents of the University of California.

The MUC-1 vaccine tecemotide plus standard neoadjuvant systemic therapy was shown to notably improve distant relapse-free survival and overall survival rates in breast cancer patients, in a new study.

“This is the first successful study of a breast cancer vaccine to date,” Christian F. Singer, MD, said during an interview. Dr. Singer, the lead author of the new study, presented the results during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously known as both liposomal BLP25 and Stimuvax, tecemotide is an antigen-specific immunotherapy that targets the cancer therapy–resistant MUC-1 glycoprotein, which is overexpressed in over 90% of breast cancers. Tecemotide also has been shown to moderately improve overall survival rates in non–small cell lung cancer.

“We are not at all surprised by the results of this study in breast cancer,” Gregory T. Wurz, PhD, senior researcher at RCU Labs in Lincoln, California, said in an interview.

Dr. Wurz is coauthor of several studies on peptide vaccines, including a mouse model study of human MUC-1–expressing mammary tumors showing that tecemotide combined with letrozole had additive antitumor activity. Another paper he coauthored showed that ospemifene enhanced the immune response to tecemotide in both tumor-bearing and non–tumor-bearing mice. These findings, combined with other research, led to the creation of a patented method of combining therapies to enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy in the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases. Dr. Wurz was not involved in the new research that Dr. Singer presented at ASCO.
 

Study Methods and Results

Dr. Singer, head of obstetrics and gynecology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, and coauthors randomized 400 patients with HER2-negative early breast cancer in a prospective, multicenter, two-arm, phase 2 ABCSG 34 trial to receive preoperative standard of care (SOC) neoadjuvant treatment with or without tecemotide.

Postmenopausal women with luminal A tumors were given 6 months of letrozole as SOC. Postmenopausal patients with triple-negative breast cancer, luminal B tumors, in whom chemotherapy was SOC, as well as all premenopausal study participants, were given four cycles of both epirubicin cyclophosphamide and docetaxel every 3 weeks.

The study’s primary endpoint was the residual cancer burden at the time of surgery.

Long-term outcomes were measured as part of a translational project, while distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with Cox regression models. Long-term outcome data were available for 291 women, of whom 236 had received chemotherapy as SOC.

While tecemotide plus neoadjuvant SOC was not associated with a significant increase in residual cancer burden (RCB) at the time of surgery (36.4% vs 31.5%; P = .42; 40.5% vs 34.8%; P = .37 for the chemotherapy-only cohort), follow-up at 7 years showed 80.8% of patients who had received SOC plus tecemotide were still alive and free from metastasis.

In patients who had received SOC alone, the OS rate at 7 years with no metastasis was 64.7% (hazard ratio [HR] for DRFS, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83; P = .005). The OS rate for the study group was 83.0% vs 68.2% in the non-tecemotide cohort (HR for OS, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.85; P = .008).

The lack of RCB signal at the endpoints, “tells us that pathologic complete response and residual cancer burden simply are not adequate endpoints for cancer vaccination studies and we need to find other predictive/prognostic markers, said Dr. Singer. “We are currently looking into this in exploratory studies.”

The chemotherapy plus tecemotide cohort had a notable outcome with a DRFS of 81.9% vs 65.0% in the SOC group (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.83; P = .007), and an OS rate of 83.6% vs 67.8% (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.88; P = .016).

Dr. Singer characterized the HRs as intriguing, saying that they “pave the way for new trials.”
 

Ideas for Further Study of Tecemotide

“What we would like to see next for tecemotide are clinical studies that explore whether immunomodulatory agents can further enhance the response to tecemotide in lung, breast, and potentially other MUC-1–expressing cancers,” Dr. Wurz said.

Future phase 3 studies of MUC-1 cancer vaccines, possibly those using mRNA technology, are yet to come, according to Dr. Singer. “We also need to find out why the vaccine works sometimes and sometimes not.”

Dr. Singer disclosed financial ties to AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Sanofi/Aventis, Amgen, Myriad Genetics, and Roche. Dr. Wurz had no disclosures, but his research partner and founder of RCU Labs, Michael De Gregorio, is the sole inventor of the patent referenced in the story. That patent has been assigned to the Regents of the University of California.

The MUC-1 vaccine tecemotide plus standard neoadjuvant systemic therapy was shown to notably improve distant relapse-free survival and overall survival rates in breast cancer patients, in a new study.

“This is the first successful study of a breast cancer vaccine to date,” Christian F. Singer, MD, said during an interview. Dr. Singer, the lead author of the new study, presented the results during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously known as both liposomal BLP25 and Stimuvax, tecemotide is an antigen-specific immunotherapy that targets the cancer therapy–resistant MUC-1 glycoprotein, which is overexpressed in over 90% of breast cancers. Tecemotide also has been shown to moderately improve overall survival rates in non–small cell lung cancer.

“We are not at all surprised by the results of this study in breast cancer,” Gregory T. Wurz, PhD, senior researcher at RCU Labs in Lincoln, California, said in an interview.

Dr. Wurz is coauthor of several studies on peptide vaccines, including a mouse model study of human MUC-1–expressing mammary tumors showing that tecemotide combined with letrozole had additive antitumor activity. Another paper he coauthored showed that ospemifene enhanced the immune response to tecemotide in both tumor-bearing and non–tumor-bearing mice. These findings, combined with other research, led to the creation of a patented method of combining therapies to enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy in the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases. Dr. Wurz was not involved in the new research that Dr. Singer presented at ASCO.
 

Study Methods and Results

Dr. Singer, head of obstetrics and gynecology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, and coauthors randomized 400 patients with HER2-negative early breast cancer in a prospective, multicenter, two-arm, phase 2 ABCSG 34 trial to receive preoperative standard of care (SOC) neoadjuvant treatment with or without tecemotide.

Postmenopausal women with luminal A tumors were given 6 months of letrozole as SOC. Postmenopausal patients with triple-negative breast cancer, luminal B tumors, in whom chemotherapy was SOC, as well as all premenopausal study participants, were given four cycles of both epirubicin cyclophosphamide and docetaxel every 3 weeks.

The study’s primary endpoint was the residual cancer burden at the time of surgery.

Long-term outcomes were measured as part of a translational project, while distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with Cox regression models. Long-term outcome data were available for 291 women, of whom 236 had received chemotherapy as SOC.

While tecemotide plus neoadjuvant SOC was not associated with a significant increase in residual cancer burden (RCB) at the time of surgery (36.4% vs 31.5%; P = .42; 40.5% vs 34.8%; P = .37 for the chemotherapy-only cohort), follow-up at 7 years showed 80.8% of patients who had received SOC plus tecemotide were still alive and free from metastasis.

In patients who had received SOC alone, the OS rate at 7 years with no metastasis was 64.7% (hazard ratio [HR] for DRFS, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83; P = .005). The OS rate for the study group was 83.0% vs 68.2% in the non-tecemotide cohort (HR for OS, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.85; P = .008).

The lack of RCB signal at the endpoints, “tells us that pathologic complete response and residual cancer burden simply are not adequate endpoints for cancer vaccination studies and we need to find other predictive/prognostic markers, said Dr. Singer. “We are currently looking into this in exploratory studies.”

The chemotherapy plus tecemotide cohort had a notable outcome with a DRFS of 81.9% vs 65.0% in the SOC group (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.83; P = .007), and an OS rate of 83.6% vs 67.8% (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.88; P = .016).

Dr. Singer characterized the HRs as intriguing, saying that they “pave the way for new trials.”
 

Ideas for Further Study of Tecemotide

“What we would like to see next for tecemotide are clinical studies that explore whether immunomodulatory agents can further enhance the response to tecemotide in lung, breast, and potentially other MUC-1–expressing cancers,” Dr. Wurz said.

Future phase 3 studies of MUC-1 cancer vaccines, possibly those using mRNA technology, are yet to come, according to Dr. Singer. “We also need to find out why the vaccine works sometimes and sometimes not.”

Dr. Singer disclosed financial ties to AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Sanofi/Aventis, Amgen, Myriad Genetics, and Roche. Dr. Wurz had no disclosures, but his research partner and founder of RCU Labs, Michael De Gregorio, is the sole inventor of the patent referenced in the story. That patent has been assigned to the Regents of the University of California.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking antibody used to treat different malignancies including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and other advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Various dermatological side effects have been associated with pembrolizumab, including pruritus, bullous pemphigoid, vitiligo, lichenoid skin reactions, psoriasis, and rarely, life-threatening conditions like Steven-Johnson syndrome and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).

Lichen planus-like adverse drug reactions, as seen in this patient, are also referred to as lichenoid drug eruption or drug-induced lichen planus. This cutaneous reaction is one of the more rare side effects of pembrolizumab. It should be noted that in lichenoid reactions, keratinocytes expressing PD-L1 are particularly affected, leading to a dense CD4/CD8 positive lymphocytic infiltration in the basal layer, necrosis of keratinocytes, acanthosis, and hypergranulosis. Subsequently, the cutaneous adverse reaction is a target effect of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and not a general hypersensitivity reaction. Clinically, both lichen planus and lichenoid drug eruptions exhibit erythematous papules and plaques. Lichenoid drug eruptions, however, can be scaly, pruritic, and heal with more hyperpigmentation.

A skin biopsy revealed irregular epidermal hyperplasia with jagged rete ridges. Within the dermis, there was a lichenoid inflammatory cell infiltrate obscuring the dermal-epidermal junction. The inflammatory cell infiltrate contained lymphocytes, histiocytes, and eosinophils. A diagnosis of a lichen planus-like adverse drug reaction to pembrolizumab was favored.

If the reaction is mild, topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines can help with the drug-induced lichen planus. For more severe cases, systemic steroids can be given to help ease the reaction. Physicians should be aware of potential adverse drug effects that can mimic other medical conditions.

BiluMartin_Donna_FLORIDA_web.jpg

The case and photo were submitted by Ms. Towe, Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Florida, and Dr. Berke, Three Rivers Dermatology, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

Bansal A et al. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2023 Apr 4;14(3):391-4. doi: 10.4103/idoj.idoj_377_22.

Sethi A, Raj M. Cureus. 2021 Mar 8;13(3):e13768. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13768.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking antibody used to treat different malignancies including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and other advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Various dermatological side effects have been associated with pembrolizumab, including pruritus, bullous pemphigoid, vitiligo, lichenoid skin reactions, psoriasis, and rarely, life-threatening conditions like Steven-Johnson syndrome and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).

Lichen planus-like adverse drug reactions, as seen in this patient, are also referred to as lichenoid drug eruption or drug-induced lichen planus. This cutaneous reaction is one of the more rare side effects of pembrolizumab. It should be noted that in lichenoid reactions, keratinocytes expressing PD-L1 are particularly affected, leading to a dense CD4/CD8 positive lymphocytic infiltration in the basal layer, necrosis of keratinocytes, acanthosis, and hypergranulosis. Subsequently, the cutaneous adverse reaction is a target effect of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and not a general hypersensitivity reaction. Clinically, both lichen planus and lichenoid drug eruptions exhibit erythematous papules and plaques. Lichenoid drug eruptions, however, can be scaly, pruritic, and heal with more hyperpigmentation.

A skin biopsy revealed irregular epidermal hyperplasia with jagged rete ridges. Within the dermis, there was a lichenoid inflammatory cell infiltrate obscuring the dermal-epidermal junction. The inflammatory cell infiltrate contained lymphocytes, histiocytes, and eosinophils. A diagnosis of a lichen planus-like adverse drug reaction to pembrolizumab was favored.

If the reaction is mild, topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines can help with the drug-induced lichen planus. For more severe cases, systemic steroids can be given to help ease the reaction. Physicians should be aware of potential adverse drug effects that can mimic other medical conditions.

BiluMartin_Donna_FLORIDA_web.jpg

The case and photo were submitted by Ms. Towe, Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Florida, and Dr. Berke, Three Rivers Dermatology, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

Bansal A et al. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2023 Apr 4;14(3):391-4. doi: 10.4103/idoj.idoj_377_22.

Sethi A, Raj M. Cureus. 2021 Mar 8;13(3):e13768. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13768.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking antibody used to treat different malignancies including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and other advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Various dermatological side effects have been associated with pembrolizumab, including pruritus, bullous pemphigoid, vitiligo, lichenoid skin reactions, psoriasis, and rarely, life-threatening conditions like Steven-Johnson syndrome and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).

Lichen planus-like adverse drug reactions, as seen in this patient, are also referred to as lichenoid drug eruption or drug-induced lichen planus. This cutaneous reaction is one of the more rare side effects of pembrolizumab. It should be noted that in lichenoid reactions, keratinocytes expressing PD-L1 are particularly affected, leading to a dense CD4/CD8 positive lymphocytic infiltration in the basal layer, necrosis of keratinocytes, acanthosis, and hypergranulosis. Subsequently, the cutaneous adverse reaction is a target effect of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and not a general hypersensitivity reaction. Clinically, both lichen planus and lichenoid drug eruptions exhibit erythematous papules and plaques. Lichenoid drug eruptions, however, can be scaly, pruritic, and heal with more hyperpigmentation.

A skin biopsy revealed irregular epidermal hyperplasia with jagged rete ridges. Within the dermis, there was a lichenoid inflammatory cell infiltrate obscuring the dermal-epidermal junction. The inflammatory cell infiltrate contained lymphocytes, histiocytes, and eosinophils. A diagnosis of a lichen planus-like adverse drug reaction to pembrolizumab was favored.

If the reaction is mild, topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines can help with the drug-induced lichen planus. For more severe cases, systemic steroids can be given to help ease the reaction. Physicians should be aware of potential adverse drug effects that can mimic other medical conditions.

BiluMartin_Donna_FLORIDA_web.jpg

The case and photo were submitted by Ms. Towe, Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Florida, and Dr. Berke, Three Rivers Dermatology, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

Bansal A et al. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2023 Apr 4;14(3):391-4. doi: 10.4103/idoj.idoj_377_22.

Sethi A, Raj M. Cureus. 2021 Mar 8;13(3):e13768. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13768.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Immunotherapy has revolutionized outcomes for patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). However, findings from a new study suggest that many patients who are eligible for immunotherapy are not receiving this treatment, despite guideline recommendations, and survival outcomes are better at high-volume centers.

The study has important implications, said study author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, an incoming fellow in Mohs surgery at New York University, New York City. “We can see that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival,” he said. “We also found high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers.” He presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

MCC is a neuroendocrine skin cancer with a high rate of mortality, and even though it remains relatively rare, its incidence has been rising rapidly since the late 1990s and continues to increase. There were no approved treatments available until 2017, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the immunotherapy drug avelumab (Bavencio) to treat advanced MCC. Two years later, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) also received regulatory approval for MCC, and these two agents have revolutionized outcomes.

“In clinical trial settings, these agents led to significant and durable responses, and they are now the recommended treatments in guidelines for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma,” said Dr. Cheraghlou. “However, we don’t have data as to how they are being used in the real-world setting and if survival outcomes are similar.”

[embed:render:related:node:264982]

Real World vs Clinical Trials

Real-world outcomes can differ from clinical trial data, and the adoption of novel therapeutics can be gradual. The goal of this study was to see if clinical trial data matched what was being observed in actual clinical use and if the agents were being used uniformly in centers across the United States.

The authors used data from the National Cancer Database that included patients diagnosed with cancer from 2004 to 2019 and identified 1017 adult cases of metastatic MCC. They then looked at the association of a variety of patient characteristics, tumors, and system factors with the likelihood of receiving systemic treatment for their disease.

“Our first finding was maybe the least surprising,” he said. “Patients who received these therapeutic agents had significantly improved survival compared to those who have not.”

Those who received immunotherapy had a 35% decrease in the risk for death per year compared with those who did not. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 47.2%, 21.8%, and 16.5%, respectively, for patients who did not receive immunotherapy compared with 62.7%, 34.4%, and 23.6%, respectively, for those who were treated with these agents.

Dr. Cheraghlou noted that they started to get some “surprising” findings when they looked at utilization data. “While it has been increasing over time, it is not as high as it should be,” he emphasized.

From 2017 to 2019, 54.2% of patients with metastatic MCC received immunotherapy. The data also showed an increase in use from 45.1% in 2017 to 63.0% in 2019. “This is an effective treatment for aggressive malignancy, so we have to ask why more patients aren’t getting them,” said Dr. Cheraghlou.

Their findings did suggest one possible reason, and that was that high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers. Centers that were in the top percentile for MCC case volume were three times as likely to use immunotherapy for MCC compared with other institutions. “So, if you have metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and go to a low volume center, you may be less likely to get potential lifesaving treatment,” he noted.
 

Implications Going Forward

Dr. Cheraghlou concluded his presentation by pointing out that this study has important implications. The data showed that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival, but all eligible patients do not have access. “In other countries, there are established referral patterns for all patients with aggressive rare malignancies and really all cancers,” he added. “But in the US, cancer care is more decentralized. Studies like this and others show that high-volume centers have much better outcomes for aggressive rare malignancies, and we should be looking at why this is the case and mitigating these disparities and outcomes.”

Commenting on the study results, Jeffrey M. Farma, MD, co-director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program and professor of surgical oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, referred to the two immunotherapies that have been approved for MCC since 2017, which have demonstrated a survival benefit and improved outcomes in patients with metastatic MCC.

prespujonegowrubriwoprikoprakotacowrospehaposebrithikoprawaspulotobrithukeuibreshebrosogaclotadigathacecheuiloslabravuuewacracrirojucroswiwrosorocoslasovotrawoslujocluswaphekathegopineredrajugeprusletuceleswicrowrotridravudreshecochaclethethigigi

“In their study, immunotherapy was associated with improved outcomes,” said Dr. Farma. “This study highlights the continued lag of implementation of guidelines when new therapies are approved, and that for rare cancers like Merkel cell carcinoma, being treated at high-volume centers and the regionalization of care can lead to improved outcomes for patients.”

Dr. Cheraghlou and Dr. Farma had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Immunotherapy has revolutionized outcomes for patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). However, findings from a new study suggest that many patients who are eligible for immunotherapy are not receiving this treatment, despite guideline recommendations, and survival outcomes are better at high-volume centers.

The study has important implications, said study author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, an incoming fellow in Mohs surgery at New York University, New York City. “We can see that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival,” he said. “We also found high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers.” He presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

MCC is a neuroendocrine skin cancer with a high rate of mortality, and even though it remains relatively rare, its incidence has been rising rapidly since the late 1990s and continues to increase. There were no approved treatments available until 2017, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the immunotherapy drug avelumab (Bavencio) to treat advanced MCC. Two years later, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) also received regulatory approval for MCC, and these two agents have revolutionized outcomes.

“In clinical trial settings, these agents led to significant and durable responses, and they are now the recommended treatments in guidelines for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma,” said Dr. Cheraghlou. “However, we don’t have data as to how they are being used in the real-world setting and if survival outcomes are similar.”

[embed:render:related:node:264982]

Real World vs Clinical Trials

Real-world outcomes can differ from clinical trial data, and the adoption of novel therapeutics can be gradual. The goal of this study was to see if clinical trial data matched what was being observed in actual clinical use and if the agents were being used uniformly in centers across the United States.

The authors used data from the National Cancer Database that included patients diagnosed with cancer from 2004 to 2019 and identified 1017 adult cases of metastatic MCC. They then looked at the association of a variety of patient characteristics, tumors, and system factors with the likelihood of receiving systemic treatment for their disease.

“Our first finding was maybe the least surprising,” he said. “Patients who received these therapeutic agents had significantly improved survival compared to those who have not.”

Those who received immunotherapy had a 35% decrease in the risk for death per year compared with those who did not. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 47.2%, 21.8%, and 16.5%, respectively, for patients who did not receive immunotherapy compared with 62.7%, 34.4%, and 23.6%, respectively, for those who were treated with these agents.

Dr. Cheraghlou noted that they started to get some “surprising” findings when they looked at utilization data. “While it has been increasing over time, it is not as high as it should be,” he emphasized.

From 2017 to 2019, 54.2% of patients with metastatic MCC received immunotherapy. The data also showed an increase in use from 45.1% in 2017 to 63.0% in 2019. “This is an effective treatment for aggressive malignancy, so we have to ask why more patients aren’t getting them,” said Dr. Cheraghlou.

Their findings did suggest one possible reason, and that was that high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers. Centers that were in the top percentile for MCC case volume were three times as likely to use immunotherapy for MCC compared with other institutions. “So, if you have metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and go to a low volume center, you may be less likely to get potential lifesaving treatment,” he noted.
 

Implications Going Forward

Dr. Cheraghlou concluded his presentation by pointing out that this study has important implications. The data showed that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival, but all eligible patients do not have access. “In other countries, there are established referral patterns for all patients with aggressive rare malignancies and really all cancers,” he added. “But in the US, cancer care is more decentralized. Studies like this and others show that high-volume centers have much better outcomes for aggressive rare malignancies, and we should be looking at why this is the case and mitigating these disparities and outcomes.”

Commenting on the study results, Jeffrey M. Farma, MD, co-director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program and professor of surgical oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, referred to the two immunotherapies that have been approved for MCC since 2017, which have demonstrated a survival benefit and improved outcomes in patients with metastatic MCC.

prespujonegowrubriwoprikoprakotacowrospehaposebrithikoprawaspulotobrithukeuibreshebrosogaclotadigathacecheuiloslabravuuewacracrirojucroswiwrosorocoslasovotrawoslujocluswaphekathegopineredrajugeprusletuceleswicrowrotridravudreshecochaclethethigigi

“In their study, immunotherapy was associated with improved outcomes,” said Dr. Farma. “This study highlights the continued lag of implementation of guidelines when new therapies are approved, and that for rare cancers like Merkel cell carcinoma, being treated at high-volume centers and the regionalization of care can lead to improved outcomes for patients.”

Dr. Cheraghlou and Dr. Farma had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Immunotherapy has revolutionized outcomes for patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). However, findings from a new study suggest that many patients who are eligible for immunotherapy are not receiving this treatment, despite guideline recommendations, and survival outcomes are better at high-volume centers.

The study has important implications, said study author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, an incoming fellow in Mohs surgery at New York University, New York City. “We can see that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival,” he said. “We also found high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers.” He presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

MCC is a neuroendocrine skin cancer with a high rate of mortality, and even though it remains relatively rare, its incidence has been rising rapidly since the late 1990s and continues to increase. There were no approved treatments available until 2017, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the immunotherapy drug avelumab (Bavencio) to treat advanced MCC. Two years later, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) also received regulatory approval for MCC, and these two agents have revolutionized outcomes.

“In clinical trial settings, these agents led to significant and durable responses, and they are now the recommended treatments in guidelines for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma,” said Dr. Cheraghlou. “However, we don’t have data as to how they are being used in the real-world setting and if survival outcomes are similar.”

[embed:render:related:node:264982]

Real World vs Clinical Trials

Real-world outcomes can differ from clinical trial data, and the adoption of novel therapeutics can be gradual. The goal of this study was to see if clinical trial data matched what was being observed in actual clinical use and if the agents were being used uniformly in centers across the United States.

The authors used data from the National Cancer Database that included patients diagnosed with cancer from 2004 to 2019 and identified 1017 adult cases of metastatic MCC. They then looked at the association of a variety of patient characteristics, tumors, and system factors with the likelihood of receiving systemic treatment for their disease.

“Our first finding was maybe the least surprising,” he said. “Patients who received these therapeutic agents had significantly improved survival compared to those who have not.”

Those who received immunotherapy had a 35% decrease in the risk for death per year compared with those who did not. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 47.2%, 21.8%, and 16.5%, respectively, for patients who did not receive immunotherapy compared with 62.7%, 34.4%, and 23.6%, respectively, for those who were treated with these agents.

Dr. Cheraghlou noted that they started to get some “surprising” findings when they looked at utilization data. “While it has been increasing over time, it is not as high as it should be,” he emphasized.

From 2017 to 2019, 54.2% of patients with metastatic MCC received immunotherapy. The data also showed an increase in use from 45.1% in 2017 to 63.0% in 2019. “This is an effective treatment for aggressive malignancy, so we have to ask why more patients aren’t getting them,” said Dr. Cheraghlou.

Their findings did suggest one possible reason, and that was that high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers. Centers that were in the top percentile for MCC case volume were three times as likely to use immunotherapy for MCC compared with other institutions. “So, if you have metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and go to a low volume center, you may be less likely to get potential lifesaving treatment,” he noted.
 

Implications Going Forward

Dr. Cheraghlou concluded his presentation by pointing out that this study has important implications. The data showed that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival, but all eligible patients do not have access. “In other countries, there are established referral patterns for all patients with aggressive rare malignancies and really all cancers,” he added. “But in the US, cancer care is more decentralized. Studies like this and others show that high-volume centers have much better outcomes for aggressive rare malignancies, and we should be looking at why this is the case and mitigating these disparities and outcomes.”

Commenting on the study results, Jeffrey M. Farma, MD, co-director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program and professor of surgical oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, referred to the two immunotherapies that have been approved for MCC since 2017, which have demonstrated a survival benefit and improved outcomes in patients with metastatic MCC.

prespujonegowrubriwoprikoprakotacowrospehaposebrithikoprawaspulotobrithukeuibreshebrosogaclotadigathacecheuiloslabravuuewacracrirojucroswiwrosorocoslasovotrawoslujocluswaphekathegopineredrajugeprusletuceleswicrowrotridravudreshecochaclethethigigi

“In their study, immunotherapy was associated with improved outcomes,” said Dr. Farma. “This study highlights the continued lag of implementation of guidelines when new therapies are approved, and that for rare cancers like Merkel cell carcinoma, being treated at high-volume centers and the regionalization of care can lead to improved outcomes for patients.”

Dr. Cheraghlou and Dr. Farma had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Overall, patients with solid tumors who receive an investigational cancer drug experience small progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival benefits but much higher toxicity than those who receive a control intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
• To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
• The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
• The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
• Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
• Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. 

“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”

SOURCE: 

Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported. 

DISCLOSURES:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall, patients with solid tumors who receive an investigational cancer drug experience small progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival benefits but much higher toxicity than those who receive a control intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
• To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
• The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
• The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
• Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
• Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. 

“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”

SOURCE: 

Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported. 

DISCLOSURES:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall, patients with solid tumors who receive an investigational cancer drug experience small progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival benefits but much higher toxicity than those who receive a control intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
• To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
• The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
• The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
• Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
• Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. 

“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”

SOURCE: 

Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported. 

DISCLOSURES:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There have been many attempts to use immunotherapy to improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer, but they haven’t worked out.

The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.

In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.

Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.

Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.

Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.

Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.

Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.

Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.

The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.

Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.

“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”

Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”

Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”

For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?

The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.

A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There have been many attempts to use immunotherapy to improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer, but they haven’t worked out.

The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.

In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.

Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.

Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.

Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.

Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.

Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.

Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.

The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.

Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.

“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”

Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”

Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”

For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?

The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.

A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There have been many attempts to use immunotherapy to improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer, but they haven’t worked out.

The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.

In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.

Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.

Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.

Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.

Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.

Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.

Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.

The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.

Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.

“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”

Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”

Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”

For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?

The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.

A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.