User login
New Immunotherapy Combo Shows Promise for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005) is evaluating multiple treatment combinations in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC.
The trial’s interim clinical data was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
Rationale for Combining Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Immunotherapy
Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, professor at the Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine in London, England, presented interim findings from one study arm of MORPHEUS-pan BC at the meeting. The arm consisted of patients with TNBC who were treated with a combination of atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, and sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the Trop-2 protein commonly expressed in TNBC.
TNBC is one of the most challenging subtypes of breast cancer to treat because of its aggressive characteristics and innate resistance to hormonal therapy and HER2-targeted treatments. However, the recent approval of immunotherapy for TNBC has provided renewed hope for patients, according to Dr. Schmid.
Atezolizumab, in combination with nab-paclitaxel, has already been approved as a first-line treatment for PD-L1–positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC; however, not all patients respond to this combination treatment. Sacituzumab govitecan is approved for second-line and subsequent-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.
“Cancer immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has transformed the TNBC treatment landscape, but new combinations are needed to further improve survival outcomes,” Dr. Schmid said during his presentation. “We hoped that combining immunotherapy with an antibody-drug conjugate would not only improve safety but also increase efficacy through enhanced immune activation.”
Study Design
The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. Patients were randomized to receive experimental treatment consisting of atezolizumab plus the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan. Patients in the second arm received a control regimen of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy.
“The control regimen is part of the current standard of care for patients with PD-L1–positive TNBC,” Dr. Schmid explained in his presentation. As of the data cut-off, 11 patients were enrolled in the control arm and 31 in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm.
During the discussion session after his talk, Dr. Schmid commented on the use of PD-L1 expression to select patients for enrollment, acknowledging that PD-L1 is not the best biomarker.
“Its expression is very dynamic and can change rapidly,” he said. He added, however, that it is currently the most suitable biomarker for patient selection for treatment with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.
Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, added that, because patients were selected based on PD-L1 expression, it is unclear whether this combination therapy would show anti-tumor activity in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors. Dr. Tolaney, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved in the study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Schmid.
Promising Anti-tumor Activity
The combination of atezolizumab and sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity as initial treatment for this patient population. The interim analysis at 18 weeks showed an objective response rate of 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1; n = 23, including five complete responses) in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm, versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5; n = 6, all of which were partial responses) in the control arm.
“The 66% response rate in the control arm aligns with what we see in historical data from patients treated with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy,” noted Dr. Schmid during his talk.
The clinical benefit rate, which includes complete and partial responses as well as stable disease, was also encouraging at 83.3% (95% CI, 65.3-94.4) with the dual immunotherapy regimen versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5) with standard therapy.
Commenting on the potential mechanisms of the synergistic effect of this combination therapy, Dr. Tolaney said, “In addition to delivering chemotherapy payloads to cancer cells, antibody-drug conjugates can lead to dendritic cell activation, T-cell activation, and immune cell infiltration.”
She added that antibody-drug conjugates can cause Fc activation in NK cells, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cytotoxicity.
Encouraging survival trends
Interim survival data showed trends favoring atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan over the control arm of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.2 months (95% CI, 7.4-not estimable) in the immunotherapy combination group versus 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.70). The overall survival data are still immature.
During the discussion session, Dr. Schmid cautioned that, although the benefit of this combination therapy in terms of PFS seems promising, the validity of the hazard ratio is limited because of the small cohort size. He added, “The survival data is still immature, and longer follow-up is needed.”
These encouraging response and PFS rates need to be confirmed in larger studies of this immunotherapy combination as a potential new first-line standard for PD-L1–positive TNBC, according to Dr. Schmid.
Relationship between biomarker expression and response
The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled only patients with PD-L1–positive tumors at baseline, defined as PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of immune cells infiltrating the tumor. Tumors at baseline were also tested for Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).
“We wanted to get an idea of whether these biomarkers are associated with treatment response,” Dr. Schmid explained during his talk.
Although the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan treatment was observed across all Trop-2 expression levels, preliminary analyses suggest that high Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal TILs may be associated with response to atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan. However, Dr. Schmid noted that validation of these associations in larger cohorts is required.
Safety of combination treatment
The side effect profile of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan appeared consistent with that expected from the two individual drugs, with no new toxicity signals.
All patients in both treatment arms experienced at least one adverse event; however, there were no fatal adverse events. Grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the experimental arm (70.0%) than in the control arm (44.4%), while serious adverse events were more common in the control group (44.4% versus 23.3%). Immune-related adverse events were considerably more common in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan group than in the control group (80.0% versus 55.6%).
The most common adverse events in patients treated with atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan were nausea, alopecia, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Dr. Schmid emphasized in his presentation that this toxicity profile was dominated by adverse events that are common in patients treated with chemotherapy.
“These safety data are significant as they suggest that the combination therapy does not introduce additional risks beyond those already associated with each drug,” he added.
Looking Ahead
Dr. Tolaney highlighted that the cohort size of this study was small and the follow-up time was insufficient to draw conclusions about survival outcomes. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the efficacy of first-line atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan, she said.
“While this was a small study, the response data is very intriguing, with 17% of patients experiencing complete responses. The PFS data are also impressive, and there seems to be an interesting trend towards better response in patients with high Trop-2 expression and those with high levels of stromal TILs,” she added.
Dr. Tolaney also noted that the response rates and PFS data presented are similar to those of one of the treatment arms in the BEGONIA trial (NCT03742102), which investigated different combinations of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC. Like MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005), this study evaluated the efficacy of a different antibody-drug conjugate with chemotherapy. Patients in the study arm of the BEGONIA trial she was referring to received durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 agent) and datopotamab deruxtecan (an antibody-drug conjugate).
Dr. Schmid said that biomarker analyses are ongoing to assess whether there is a correlation between Trop-2 expression levels and the benefits of sacituzumab govitecan. Studies are also needed to determine whether this combination can improve pathologic complete response rates in early-stage TNBC.
Dr. Tolaney echoed the importance of evaluating the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in different settings, including patients with PD-L1–negative or immunologically cold tumors and those with early-stage disease. “Ultimately, we want this combination treatment to move forward to early-stage TNBC to see if we could cure more patients,” she said, during the discussion.
Dr. Schmid reported financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (consulting or advisory roles); Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (honoraria); and AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Oncogenex, Novartis, Astellas, and Medivation (research funding). Dr. Tolaney reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc., Beyond Spring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Infinity Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (consulting or advisory roles); Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Nanostring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics (research funding).
MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005) is evaluating multiple treatment combinations in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC.
The trial’s interim clinical data was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
Rationale for Combining Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Immunotherapy
Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, professor at the Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine in London, England, presented interim findings from one study arm of MORPHEUS-pan BC at the meeting. The arm consisted of patients with TNBC who were treated with a combination of atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, and sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the Trop-2 protein commonly expressed in TNBC.
TNBC is one of the most challenging subtypes of breast cancer to treat because of its aggressive characteristics and innate resistance to hormonal therapy and HER2-targeted treatments. However, the recent approval of immunotherapy for TNBC has provided renewed hope for patients, according to Dr. Schmid.
Atezolizumab, in combination with nab-paclitaxel, has already been approved as a first-line treatment for PD-L1–positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC; however, not all patients respond to this combination treatment. Sacituzumab govitecan is approved for second-line and subsequent-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.
“Cancer immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has transformed the TNBC treatment landscape, but new combinations are needed to further improve survival outcomes,” Dr. Schmid said during his presentation. “We hoped that combining immunotherapy with an antibody-drug conjugate would not only improve safety but also increase efficacy through enhanced immune activation.”
Study Design
The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. Patients were randomized to receive experimental treatment consisting of atezolizumab plus the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan. Patients in the second arm received a control regimen of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy.
“The control regimen is part of the current standard of care for patients with PD-L1–positive TNBC,” Dr. Schmid explained in his presentation. As of the data cut-off, 11 patients were enrolled in the control arm and 31 in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm.
During the discussion session after his talk, Dr. Schmid commented on the use of PD-L1 expression to select patients for enrollment, acknowledging that PD-L1 is not the best biomarker.
“Its expression is very dynamic and can change rapidly,” he said. He added, however, that it is currently the most suitable biomarker for patient selection for treatment with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.
Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, added that, because patients were selected based on PD-L1 expression, it is unclear whether this combination therapy would show anti-tumor activity in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors. Dr. Tolaney, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved in the study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Schmid.
Promising Anti-tumor Activity
The combination of atezolizumab and sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity as initial treatment for this patient population. The interim analysis at 18 weeks showed an objective response rate of 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1; n = 23, including five complete responses) in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm, versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5; n = 6, all of which were partial responses) in the control arm.
“The 66% response rate in the control arm aligns with what we see in historical data from patients treated with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy,” noted Dr. Schmid during his talk.
The clinical benefit rate, which includes complete and partial responses as well as stable disease, was also encouraging at 83.3% (95% CI, 65.3-94.4) with the dual immunotherapy regimen versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5) with standard therapy.
Commenting on the potential mechanisms of the synergistic effect of this combination therapy, Dr. Tolaney said, “In addition to delivering chemotherapy payloads to cancer cells, antibody-drug conjugates can lead to dendritic cell activation, T-cell activation, and immune cell infiltration.”
She added that antibody-drug conjugates can cause Fc activation in NK cells, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cytotoxicity.
Encouraging survival trends
Interim survival data showed trends favoring atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan over the control arm of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.2 months (95% CI, 7.4-not estimable) in the immunotherapy combination group versus 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.70). The overall survival data are still immature.
During the discussion session, Dr. Schmid cautioned that, although the benefit of this combination therapy in terms of PFS seems promising, the validity of the hazard ratio is limited because of the small cohort size. He added, “The survival data is still immature, and longer follow-up is needed.”
These encouraging response and PFS rates need to be confirmed in larger studies of this immunotherapy combination as a potential new first-line standard for PD-L1–positive TNBC, according to Dr. Schmid.
Relationship between biomarker expression and response
The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled only patients with PD-L1–positive tumors at baseline, defined as PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of immune cells infiltrating the tumor. Tumors at baseline were also tested for Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).
“We wanted to get an idea of whether these biomarkers are associated with treatment response,” Dr. Schmid explained during his talk.
Although the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan treatment was observed across all Trop-2 expression levels, preliminary analyses suggest that high Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal TILs may be associated with response to atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan. However, Dr. Schmid noted that validation of these associations in larger cohorts is required.
Safety of combination treatment
The side effect profile of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan appeared consistent with that expected from the two individual drugs, with no new toxicity signals.
All patients in both treatment arms experienced at least one adverse event; however, there were no fatal adverse events. Grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the experimental arm (70.0%) than in the control arm (44.4%), while serious adverse events were more common in the control group (44.4% versus 23.3%). Immune-related adverse events were considerably more common in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan group than in the control group (80.0% versus 55.6%).
The most common adverse events in patients treated with atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan were nausea, alopecia, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Dr. Schmid emphasized in his presentation that this toxicity profile was dominated by adverse events that are common in patients treated with chemotherapy.
“These safety data are significant as they suggest that the combination therapy does not introduce additional risks beyond those already associated with each drug,” he added.
Looking Ahead
Dr. Tolaney highlighted that the cohort size of this study was small and the follow-up time was insufficient to draw conclusions about survival outcomes. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the efficacy of first-line atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan, she said.
“While this was a small study, the response data is very intriguing, with 17% of patients experiencing complete responses. The PFS data are also impressive, and there seems to be an interesting trend towards better response in patients with high Trop-2 expression and those with high levels of stromal TILs,” she added.
Dr. Tolaney also noted that the response rates and PFS data presented are similar to those of one of the treatment arms in the BEGONIA trial (NCT03742102), which investigated different combinations of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC. Like MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005), this study evaluated the efficacy of a different antibody-drug conjugate with chemotherapy. Patients in the study arm of the BEGONIA trial she was referring to received durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 agent) and datopotamab deruxtecan (an antibody-drug conjugate).
Dr. Schmid said that biomarker analyses are ongoing to assess whether there is a correlation between Trop-2 expression levels and the benefits of sacituzumab govitecan. Studies are also needed to determine whether this combination can improve pathologic complete response rates in early-stage TNBC.
Dr. Tolaney echoed the importance of evaluating the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in different settings, including patients with PD-L1–negative or immunologically cold tumors and those with early-stage disease. “Ultimately, we want this combination treatment to move forward to early-stage TNBC to see if we could cure more patients,” she said, during the discussion.
Dr. Schmid reported financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (consulting or advisory roles); Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (honoraria); and AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Oncogenex, Novartis, Astellas, and Medivation (research funding). Dr. Tolaney reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc., Beyond Spring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Infinity Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (consulting or advisory roles); Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Nanostring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics (research funding).
MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005) is evaluating multiple treatment combinations in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC.
The trial’s interim clinical data was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
Rationale for Combining Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Immunotherapy
Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, professor at the Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine in London, England, presented interim findings from one study arm of MORPHEUS-pan BC at the meeting. The arm consisted of patients with TNBC who were treated with a combination of atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, and sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the Trop-2 protein commonly expressed in TNBC.
TNBC is one of the most challenging subtypes of breast cancer to treat because of its aggressive characteristics and innate resistance to hormonal therapy and HER2-targeted treatments. However, the recent approval of immunotherapy for TNBC has provided renewed hope for patients, according to Dr. Schmid.
Atezolizumab, in combination with nab-paclitaxel, has already been approved as a first-line treatment for PD-L1–positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC; however, not all patients respond to this combination treatment. Sacituzumab govitecan is approved for second-line and subsequent-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.
“Cancer immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has transformed the TNBC treatment landscape, but new combinations are needed to further improve survival outcomes,” Dr. Schmid said during his presentation. “We hoped that combining immunotherapy with an antibody-drug conjugate would not only improve safety but also increase efficacy through enhanced immune activation.”
Study Design
The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. Patients were randomized to receive experimental treatment consisting of atezolizumab plus the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan. Patients in the second arm received a control regimen of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy.
“The control regimen is part of the current standard of care for patients with PD-L1–positive TNBC,” Dr. Schmid explained in his presentation. As of the data cut-off, 11 patients were enrolled in the control arm and 31 in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm.
During the discussion session after his talk, Dr. Schmid commented on the use of PD-L1 expression to select patients for enrollment, acknowledging that PD-L1 is not the best biomarker.
“Its expression is very dynamic and can change rapidly,” he said. He added, however, that it is currently the most suitable biomarker for patient selection for treatment with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.
Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, added that, because patients were selected based on PD-L1 expression, it is unclear whether this combination therapy would show anti-tumor activity in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors. Dr. Tolaney, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved in the study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Schmid.
Promising Anti-tumor Activity
The combination of atezolizumab and sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity as initial treatment for this patient population. The interim analysis at 18 weeks showed an objective response rate of 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1; n = 23, including five complete responses) in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm, versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5; n = 6, all of which were partial responses) in the control arm.
“The 66% response rate in the control arm aligns with what we see in historical data from patients treated with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy,” noted Dr. Schmid during his talk.
The clinical benefit rate, which includes complete and partial responses as well as stable disease, was also encouraging at 83.3% (95% CI, 65.3-94.4) with the dual immunotherapy regimen versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5) with standard therapy.
Commenting on the potential mechanisms of the synergistic effect of this combination therapy, Dr. Tolaney said, “In addition to delivering chemotherapy payloads to cancer cells, antibody-drug conjugates can lead to dendritic cell activation, T-cell activation, and immune cell infiltration.”
She added that antibody-drug conjugates can cause Fc activation in NK cells, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cytotoxicity.
Encouraging survival trends
Interim survival data showed trends favoring atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan over the control arm of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.2 months (95% CI, 7.4-not estimable) in the immunotherapy combination group versus 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.70). The overall survival data are still immature.
During the discussion session, Dr. Schmid cautioned that, although the benefit of this combination therapy in terms of PFS seems promising, the validity of the hazard ratio is limited because of the small cohort size. He added, “The survival data is still immature, and longer follow-up is needed.”
These encouraging response and PFS rates need to be confirmed in larger studies of this immunotherapy combination as a potential new first-line standard for PD-L1–positive TNBC, according to Dr. Schmid.
Relationship between biomarker expression and response
The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled only patients with PD-L1–positive tumors at baseline, defined as PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of immune cells infiltrating the tumor. Tumors at baseline were also tested for Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).
“We wanted to get an idea of whether these biomarkers are associated with treatment response,” Dr. Schmid explained during his talk.
Although the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan treatment was observed across all Trop-2 expression levels, preliminary analyses suggest that high Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal TILs may be associated with response to atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan. However, Dr. Schmid noted that validation of these associations in larger cohorts is required.
Safety of combination treatment
The side effect profile of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan appeared consistent with that expected from the two individual drugs, with no new toxicity signals.
All patients in both treatment arms experienced at least one adverse event; however, there were no fatal adverse events. Grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the experimental arm (70.0%) than in the control arm (44.4%), while serious adverse events were more common in the control group (44.4% versus 23.3%). Immune-related adverse events were considerably more common in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan group than in the control group (80.0% versus 55.6%).
The most common adverse events in patients treated with atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan were nausea, alopecia, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Dr. Schmid emphasized in his presentation that this toxicity profile was dominated by adverse events that are common in patients treated with chemotherapy.
“These safety data are significant as they suggest that the combination therapy does not introduce additional risks beyond those already associated with each drug,” he added.
Looking Ahead
Dr. Tolaney highlighted that the cohort size of this study was small and the follow-up time was insufficient to draw conclusions about survival outcomes. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the efficacy of first-line atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan, she said.
“While this was a small study, the response data is very intriguing, with 17% of patients experiencing complete responses. The PFS data are also impressive, and there seems to be an interesting trend towards better response in patients with high Trop-2 expression and those with high levels of stromal TILs,” she added.
Dr. Tolaney also noted that the response rates and PFS data presented are similar to those of one of the treatment arms in the BEGONIA trial (NCT03742102), which investigated different combinations of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC. Like MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005), this study evaluated the efficacy of a different antibody-drug conjugate with chemotherapy. Patients in the study arm of the BEGONIA trial she was referring to received durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 agent) and datopotamab deruxtecan (an antibody-drug conjugate).
Dr. Schmid said that biomarker analyses are ongoing to assess whether there is a correlation between Trop-2 expression levels and the benefits of sacituzumab govitecan. Studies are also needed to determine whether this combination can improve pathologic complete response rates in early-stage TNBC.
Dr. Tolaney echoed the importance of evaluating the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in different settings, including patients with PD-L1–negative or immunologically cold tumors and those with early-stage disease. “Ultimately, we want this combination treatment to move forward to early-stage TNBC to see if we could cure more patients,” she said, during the discussion.
Dr. Schmid reported financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (consulting or advisory roles); Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (honoraria); and AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Oncogenex, Novartis, Astellas, and Medivation (research funding). Dr. Tolaney reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc., Beyond Spring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Infinity Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (consulting or advisory roles); Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Nanostring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics (research funding).
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2024
ART Safe for Breast Cancer Survivors with BRCA1/2 Mutations
For breast cancer survivors harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations, the prospect of future pregnancy often raises concerns because of limited data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in this population. However,
“Our primary aim was to evaluate the safety profile of ART in this high-risk population by comparing maternal and fetal outcomes between those who conceived spontaneously versus those using ART,” explained Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, during his talk at the conference. “We found no statistically significant differences in pregnancy complications or fetal abnormalities.” Dr. Lambertini is an associate professor and medical oncologist at the University of Genova and IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
Unmet Fertility Needs for Women With Breast Cancer
With the rising rates of early-onset breast cancer and improved survival outcomes with new therapies, the number of long-term breast cancer survivors is increasing. Fertility preservation and future reproductive choices are important considerations for young patients with breast cancer, especially for high-risk patients carrying pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. During his talk, Dr. Lambertini explained that defects in DNA damage repair due to BRCA1/2 mutations, in addition to chemotherapy after breast cancer diagnosis, can lead to premature menopause.
According to Dr. Lambertini, physicians face challenges in counseling these patients regarding the potential risks and benefits of pursuing pregnancy after cancer treatment because of the limited evidence available on the safety of ART in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.
“Clinicians have to counsel BRCA carriers based on very limited data about the safety of pursuing pregnancy with ART after a breast cancer diagnosis,” he said during his presentation.
Study Design and Patient Population
The retrospective cohort study pooled data from 78 centers worldwide to explore ART outcomes in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. The analysis included 4732 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 40 years or younger, all harboring a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant.
Among these high-risk patients, 543 became pregnant after completing cancer treatment; of these, 436 conceived naturally and 107 used ART. In the ART group, 45.5% underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation at breast cancer diagnosis, 33.3% underwent ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization after cancer treatment, and 21.2% underwent embryo transfer following oocyte donation.
Dr. Janice Tsang, MD, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, highlighted that this is the largest study focusing on ART safety in young patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. “With over 500 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers studied across nearly 80 sites, the cohort analysis had sufficient statistical power and global representation to detect potential safety signals with ART utilization, unlike prior smaller studies,” she said. Dr. Tsang, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Lambertini.
No Increased Risks for Pregnancy and Fetal Outcomes
Although women using ART had slightly higher miscarriage rates (11.3% versus 8.8%) and lower rates of induced abortion (0.9% versus 8.3%) than women with spontaneous conceptions, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of pregnancy complications, delivery complications, or congenital abnormalities between those who received ART and those who conceived naturally.
Dr. Lambertini explained that variations in baseline characteristics, such as age, may have contributed to differences in miscarriage rates.
“Patients in the ART group tended to be older at the time of conception, with a median age of 37.1 years, compared with 34.3 years in the spontaneous pregnancy group,” he said, during his presentation. Women in the ART group also more frequently had hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (43.4% versus 30.8%) and longer median time from diagnosis to conception (4.2 versus 3.3 years).
No Adverse Effects on Breast Cancer Prognosis
At a median follow-up of 5.2 years from conception, there was no detrimental effect of ART on disease-free survival for carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants who were treated for breast cancer. The ART group showed 13 (13.1%) recurrence events, compared with 118 (27.1%) recurrences in the spontaneous pregnancy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.33; P = .147).
“The risk of cancer recurrence was comparable between those using and not using ART to become pregnant after their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the small number of recurrence events in the ART group mostly involved locoregional recurrences,” Dr. Lambertini noted during his talk.
Moreover, breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival appeared to be similar between the two groups, although the small number of deaths precluded the conduction of formal analysis.
“These survival data suggest that utilizing ART does not appear to negatively impact the prognosis or course of the underlying breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said during the discussion.
Clinical Implications and Future Work
According to Dr. Lambertini, these results are incredibly valuable for clinicians counseling young breast cancer survivors with pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations who wish to have biological children.
“Given the interest of patients in having their own family and for some of them in avoiding the transmission of the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, our results are critical in improving the oncofertility counseling of young women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Lambertini during his presentation. “We can reassure patients that pursuing ART does not appear to worsen their cancer prognosis or compromise pregnancy outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions.”
During her discussion session, Dr. Tsang echoed the clinical implications of these findings, emphasizing that, by incorporating this evidence into clinical practice, healthcare providers can better support patients in making informed choices regarding fertility preservation and family planning after cancer treatment.
“Though this study is [retrospective] with a relatively small number, these real-world findings make a major contribution to our limited evidence base on ART safety for cancer survivors carrying BRCA1/2 mutations,” she said.
She cautioned, however, that there remain several unanswered questions and uncertainties. “We need prospective data with a larger sample size to confirm the safety of ART in this population, as well as studies to assess whether different types of ART have different safety profiles.”
Dr. Lambertini concluded his talk by saying, “While waiting for prospective studies to confirm our results, fertility preservation at diagnosis of early breast cancer should be offered to all women interested in future fertility, including BRCA carriers.”
Dr. Lambertini reported financial relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini (consulting or advisory roles); Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, Dalichi Sankyo, Gilead, Menarini (honoraria); Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche (travel support); and Gilead (research funding to the institution). Dr. Tsang reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, Lucence, Novartis, Pfizer, and Veracyte (honoraria); De Novo (consulting or advisory roles); and Pfizer (grant panel reviewer).
For breast cancer survivors harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations, the prospect of future pregnancy often raises concerns because of limited data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in this population. However,
“Our primary aim was to evaluate the safety profile of ART in this high-risk population by comparing maternal and fetal outcomes between those who conceived spontaneously versus those using ART,” explained Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, during his talk at the conference. “We found no statistically significant differences in pregnancy complications or fetal abnormalities.” Dr. Lambertini is an associate professor and medical oncologist at the University of Genova and IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
Unmet Fertility Needs for Women With Breast Cancer
With the rising rates of early-onset breast cancer and improved survival outcomes with new therapies, the number of long-term breast cancer survivors is increasing. Fertility preservation and future reproductive choices are important considerations for young patients with breast cancer, especially for high-risk patients carrying pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. During his talk, Dr. Lambertini explained that defects in DNA damage repair due to BRCA1/2 mutations, in addition to chemotherapy after breast cancer diagnosis, can lead to premature menopause.
According to Dr. Lambertini, physicians face challenges in counseling these patients regarding the potential risks and benefits of pursuing pregnancy after cancer treatment because of the limited evidence available on the safety of ART in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.
“Clinicians have to counsel BRCA carriers based on very limited data about the safety of pursuing pregnancy with ART after a breast cancer diagnosis,” he said during his presentation.
Study Design and Patient Population
The retrospective cohort study pooled data from 78 centers worldwide to explore ART outcomes in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. The analysis included 4732 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 40 years or younger, all harboring a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant.
Among these high-risk patients, 543 became pregnant after completing cancer treatment; of these, 436 conceived naturally and 107 used ART. In the ART group, 45.5% underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation at breast cancer diagnosis, 33.3% underwent ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization after cancer treatment, and 21.2% underwent embryo transfer following oocyte donation.
Dr. Janice Tsang, MD, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, highlighted that this is the largest study focusing on ART safety in young patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. “With over 500 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers studied across nearly 80 sites, the cohort analysis had sufficient statistical power and global representation to detect potential safety signals with ART utilization, unlike prior smaller studies,” she said. Dr. Tsang, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Lambertini.
No Increased Risks for Pregnancy and Fetal Outcomes
Although women using ART had slightly higher miscarriage rates (11.3% versus 8.8%) and lower rates of induced abortion (0.9% versus 8.3%) than women with spontaneous conceptions, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of pregnancy complications, delivery complications, or congenital abnormalities between those who received ART and those who conceived naturally.
Dr. Lambertini explained that variations in baseline characteristics, such as age, may have contributed to differences in miscarriage rates.
“Patients in the ART group tended to be older at the time of conception, with a median age of 37.1 years, compared with 34.3 years in the spontaneous pregnancy group,” he said, during his presentation. Women in the ART group also more frequently had hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (43.4% versus 30.8%) and longer median time from diagnosis to conception (4.2 versus 3.3 years).
No Adverse Effects on Breast Cancer Prognosis
At a median follow-up of 5.2 years from conception, there was no detrimental effect of ART on disease-free survival for carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants who were treated for breast cancer. The ART group showed 13 (13.1%) recurrence events, compared with 118 (27.1%) recurrences in the spontaneous pregnancy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.33; P = .147).
“The risk of cancer recurrence was comparable between those using and not using ART to become pregnant after their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the small number of recurrence events in the ART group mostly involved locoregional recurrences,” Dr. Lambertini noted during his talk.
Moreover, breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival appeared to be similar between the two groups, although the small number of deaths precluded the conduction of formal analysis.
“These survival data suggest that utilizing ART does not appear to negatively impact the prognosis or course of the underlying breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said during the discussion.
Clinical Implications and Future Work
According to Dr. Lambertini, these results are incredibly valuable for clinicians counseling young breast cancer survivors with pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations who wish to have biological children.
“Given the interest of patients in having their own family and for some of them in avoiding the transmission of the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, our results are critical in improving the oncofertility counseling of young women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Lambertini during his presentation. “We can reassure patients that pursuing ART does not appear to worsen their cancer prognosis or compromise pregnancy outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions.”
During her discussion session, Dr. Tsang echoed the clinical implications of these findings, emphasizing that, by incorporating this evidence into clinical practice, healthcare providers can better support patients in making informed choices regarding fertility preservation and family planning after cancer treatment.
“Though this study is [retrospective] with a relatively small number, these real-world findings make a major contribution to our limited evidence base on ART safety for cancer survivors carrying BRCA1/2 mutations,” she said.
She cautioned, however, that there remain several unanswered questions and uncertainties. “We need prospective data with a larger sample size to confirm the safety of ART in this population, as well as studies to assess whether different types of ART have different safety profiles.”
Dr. Lambertini concluded his talk by saying, “While waiting for prospective studies to confirm our results, fertility preservation at diagnosis of early breast cancer should be offered to all women interested in future fertility, including BRCA carriers.”
Dr. Lambertini reported financial relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini (consulting or advisory roles); Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, Dalichi Sankyo, Gilead, Menarini (honoraria); Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche (travel support); and Gilead (research funding to the institution). Dr. Tsang reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, Lucence, Novartis, Pfizer, and Veracyte (honoraria); De Novo (consulting or advisory roles); and Pfizer (grant panel reviewer).
For breast cancer survivors harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations, the prospect of future pregnancy often raises concerns because of limited data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in this population. However,
“Our primary aim was to evaluate the safety profile of ART in this high-risk population by comparing maternal and fetal outcomes between those who conceived spontaneously versus those using ART,” explained Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, during his talk at the conference. “We found no statistically significant differences in pregnancy complications or fetal abnormalities.” Dr. Lambertini is an associate professor and medical oncologist at the University of Genova and IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
Unmet Fertility Needs for Women With Breast Cancer
With the rising rates of early-onset breast cancer and improved survival outcomes with new therapies, the number of long-term breast cancer survivors is increasing. Fertility preservation and future reproductive choices are important considerations for young patients with breast cancer, especially for high-risk patients carrying pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. During his talk, Dr. Lambertini explained that defects in DNA damage repair due to BRCA1/2 mutations, in addition to chemotherapy after breast cancer diagnosis, can lead to premature menopause.
According to Dr. Lambertini, physicians face challenges in counseling these patients regarding the potential risks and benefits of pursuing pregnancy after cancer treatment because of the limited evidence available on the safety of ART in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.
“Clinicians have to counsel BRCA carriers based on very limited data about the safety of pursuing pregnancy with ART after a breast cancer diagnosis,” he said during his presentation.
Study Design and Patient Population
The retrospective cohort study pooled data from 78 centers worldwide to explore ART outcomes in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. The analysis included 4732 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 40 years or younger, all harboring a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant.
Among these high-risk patients, 543 became pregnant after completing cancer treatment; of these, 436 conceived naturally and 107 used ART. In the ART group, 45.5% underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation at breast cancer diagnosis, 33.3% underwent ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization after cancer treatment, and 21.2% underwent embryo transfer following oocyte donation.
Dr. Janice Tsang, MD, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, highlighted that this is the largest study focusing on ART safety in young patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. “With over 500 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers studied across nearly 80 sites, the cohort analysis had sufficient statistical power and global representation to detect potential safety signals with ART utilization, unlike prior smaller studies,” she said. Dr. Tsang, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Lambertini.
No Increased Risks for Pregnancy and Fetal Outcomes
Although women using ART had slightly higher miscarriage rates (11.3% versus 8.8%) and lower rates of induced abortion (0.9% versus 8.3%) than women with spontaneous conceptions, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of pregnancy complications, delivery complications, or congenital abnormalities between those who received ART and those who conceived naturally.
Dr. Lambertini explained that variations in baseline characteristics, such as age, may have contributed to differences in miscarriage rates.
“Patients in the ART group tended to be older at the time of conception, with a median age of 37.1 years, compared with 34.3 years in the spontaneous pregnancy group,” he said, during his presentation. Women in the ART group also more frequently had hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (43.4% versus 30.8%) and longer median time from diagnosis to conception (4.2 versus 3.3 years).
No Adverse Effects on Breast Cancer Prognosis
At a median follow-up of 5.2 years from conception, there was no detrimental effect of ART on disease-free survival for carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants who were treated for breast cancer. The ART group showed 13 (13.1%) recurrence events, compared with 118 (27.1%) recurrences in the spontaneous pregnancy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.33; P = .147).
“The risk of cancer recurrence was comparable between those using and not using ART to become pregnant after their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the small number of recurrence events in the ART group mostly involved locoregional recurrences,” Dr. Lambertini noted during his talk.
Moreover, breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival appeared to be similar between the two groups, although the small number of deaths precluded the conduction of formal analysis.
“These survival data suggest that utilizing ART does not appear to negatively impact the prognosis or course of the underlying breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said during the discussion.
Clinical Implications and Future Work
According to Dr. Lambertini, these results are incredibly valuable for clinicians counseling young breast cancer survivors with pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations who wish to have biological children.
“Given the interest of patients in having their own family and for some of them in avoiding the transmission of the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, our results are critical in improving the oncofertility counseling of young women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Lambertini during his presentation. “We can reassure patients that pursuing ART does not appear to worsen their cancer prognosis or compromise pregnancy outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions.”
During her discussion session, Dr. Tsang echoed the clinical implications of these findings, emphasizing that, by incorporating this evidence into clinical practice, healthcare providers can better support patients in making informed choices regarding fertility preservation and family planning after cancer treatment.
“Though this study is [retrospective] with a relatively small number, these real-world findings make a major contribution to our limited evidence base on ART safety for cancer survivors carrying BRCA1/2 mutations,” she said.
She cautioned, however, that there remain several unanswered questions and uncertainties. “We need prospective data with a larger sample size to confirm the safety of ART in this population, as well as studies to assess whether different types of ART have different safety profiles.”
Dr. Lambertini concluded his talk by saying, “While waiting for prospective studies to confirm our results, fertility preservation at diagnosis of early breast cancer should be offered to all women interested in future fertility, including BRCA carriers.”
Dr. Lambertini reported financial relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini (consulting or advisory roles); Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, Dalichi Sankyo, Gilead, Menarini (honoraria); Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche (travel support); and Gilead (research funding to the institution). Dr. Tsang reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, Lucence, Novartis, Pfizer, and Veracyte (honoraria); De Novo (consulting or advisory roles); and Pfizer (grant panel reviewer).
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2024
No Improvement in OS With Atezolizumab in Early Relapsing TNBC
Our results “highlight the importance of recognizing TNBC heterogeneity, especially in the first-line setting” said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, who presented the study at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
“These patients have a dismal prognosis and represent a high unmet need,” she added.
The current findings follow those from the IMpassion130 trial, which showed that the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy offered no survival benefit in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic TNBC despite a progression-free survival benefit on interim analysis.
Rapidly relapsing TNBC “represents one of most challenging clinical situations” because it is aggressive and “intrinsically resistant to standard therapies,” said Dr. Dent. It is also more common in younger patients with large primary tumors and no BRCA alterations.
“Most importantly, however, is that most trials actually exclude these patients,” she noted, “posing a real challenge for us in clinical practice.”
IMpassion132 enrolled 594 patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC who had experienced disease progression more than 12 months after their last treatment for early TNBC with curative intent.
Patients had received prior anthracycline and taxane therapy for but no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease.
Study participants were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with carboplatin-gemcitabine or capecitabine plus atezolizumab or placebo, with treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival.
Initially, all patients with TNBC who met the study criteria were enrolled in the randomized, phase 3, double-blinded trial; however, the trial was then amended to include only PD-L1–positive patients after the results of IMpassion130 “clearly showed us that the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibition were largely driven by those patients,” Dr. Dent explained.
The 354 patients with PD-L1–positive disease were “young,” she added, with a median age of 48 years. The youngest was 23 years old.
The majority (66%-69%) had a disease-free interval of less than 6 months after treatment with curative intent. Lung and/or liver metastases were present in 60%-62% of patients, and 18% had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.
After a median follow-up of 9.8 months, overall survival was a median of 12.1 months in the atezolizumab group vs 11.2 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .59).
A similar result was seen when looking at the modified intention-to-treat population, and when stratifying the patients by prespecified subgroup.
Dr. Dent pointed out that in the placebo group, patients treated with capecitabine had a median overall survival of 12.6 months vs 9.9 months in those given carboplatin-gemcitabine , which she described as “hypothesis generating” because “prior therapy may trigger a variety of resistance mechanisms.”
The disease-free interval also seemed to play a role in the placebo group. Patients who had a disease-free interval of 6 or more months prior to study enrollment had a median overall survival of 12.8 months vs 9.4 months in those with an interval of less than 6 months.
There were no significant differences in progression-free survival or duration of overall response between the atezolizumab and placebo groups.
“In terms of the safety data, clearly we’re getting better at identifying immune checkpoint inhibition toxicities and initiating therapies for these toxicities earlier,” Dr. Dent said, because there were “no new safety signals.”
The rate of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar between patients given atezolizumab and those assigned to placebo, at 65% vs 62%. Rates of grade 5 events were identical, at 1%.
Commenting on the study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, questioned the role for immunotherapy in patients with TNBC who experience early relapse.
This is not the first trial to fail to show a benefit in this space, she said. Collectively, these results make “me think that these tumors are pretty immunologically cold, making them less likely to benefit from checkpoint inhibition.”
The patients that do relapse, “have highly treatment refractory disease,” and “we need to think about other novel therapeutic strategies for this population,” she told this news organization.
IMpassion132 nevertheless represents a “unique opportunity to better understand the biology of these rapidly relapsing tumors, and hopefully use this information to develop more novel treatment approaches for this population,” she said.
“That being said, I do think that this is going to become an even more challenging area,” Dr. Tolaney said. “In the modern era, these patients are receiving multi-agent chemotherapy with preoperative checkpoint inhibition, and many then go on to receive additional systemic treatment in the adjuvant setting.”
The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.
Dr. Dent declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Tolaney declares relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Novartis, Nanonstring, and Cyclacel.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Our results “highlight the importance of recognizing TNBC heterogeneity, especially in the first-line setting” said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, who presented the study at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
“These patients have a dismal prognosis and represent a high unmet need,” she added.
The current findings follow those from the IMpassion130 trial, which showed that the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy offered no survival benefit in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic TNBC despite a progression-free survival benefit on interim analysis.
Rapidly relapsing TNBC “represents one of most challenging clinical situations” because it is aggressive and “intrinsically resistant to standard therapies,” said Dr. Dent. It is also more common in younger patients with large primary tumors and no BRCA alterations.
“Most importantly, however, is that most trials actually exclude these patients,” she noted, “posing a real challenge for us in clinical practice.”
IMpassion132 enrolled 594 patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC who had experienced disease progression more than 12 months after their last treatment for early TNBC with curative intent.
Patients had received prior anthracycline and taxane therapy for but no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease.
Study participants were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with carboplatin-gemcitabine or capecitabine plus atezolizumab or placebo, with treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival.
Initially, all patients with TNBC who met the study criteria were enrolled in the randomized, phase 3, double-blinded trial; however, the trial was then amended to include only PD-L1–positive patients after the results of IMpassion130 “clearly showed us that the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibition were largely driven by those patients,” Dr. Dent explained.
The 354 patients with PD-L1–positive disease were “young,” she added, with a median age of 48 years. The youngest was 23 years old.
The majority (66%-69%) had a disease-free interval of less than 6 months after treatment with curative intent. Lung and/or liver metastases were present in 60%-62% of patients, and 18% had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.
After a median follow-up of 9.8 months, overall survival was a median of 12.1 months in the atezolizumab group vs 11.2 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .59).
A similar result was seen when looking at the modified intention-to-treat population, and when stratifying the patients by prespecified subgroup.
Dr. Dent pointed out that in the placebo group, patients treated with capecitabine had a median overall survival of 12.6 months vs 9.9 months in those given carboplatin-gemcitabine , which she described as “hypothesis generating” because “prior therapy may trigger a variety of resistance mechanisms.”
The disease-free interval also seemed to play a role in the placebo group. Patients who had a disease-free interval of 6 or more months prior to study enrollment had a median overall survival of 12.8 months vs 9.4 months in those with an interval of less than 6 months.
There were no significant differences in progression-free survival or duration of overall response between the atezolizumab and placebo groups.
“In terms of the safety data, clearly we’re getting better at identifying immune checkpoint inhibition toxicities and initiating therapies for these toxicities earlier,” Dr. Dent said, because there were “no new safety signals.”
The rate of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar between patients given atezolizumab and those assigned to placebo, at 65% vs 62%. Rates of grade 5 events were identical, at 1%.
Commenting on the study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, questioned the role for immunotherapy in patients with TNBC who experience early relapse.
This is not the first trial to fail to show a benefit in this space, she said. Collectively, these results make “me think that these tumors are pretty immunologically cold, making them less likely to benefit from checkpoint inhibition.”
The patients that do relapse, “have highly treatment refractory disease,” and “we need to think about other novel therapeutic strategies for this population,” she told this news organization.
IMpassion132 nevertheless represents a “unique opportunity to better understand the biology of these rapidly relapsing tumors, and hopefully use this information to develop more novel treatment approaches for this population,” she said.
“That being said, I do think that this is going to become an even more challenging area,” Dr. Tolaney said. “In the modern era, these patients are receiving multi-agent chemotherapy with preoperative checkpoint inhibition, and many then go on to receive additional systemic treatment in the adjuvant setting.”
The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.
Dr. Dent declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Tolaney declares relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Novartis, Nanonstring, and Cyclacel.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Our results “highlight the importance of recognizing TNBC heterogeneity, especially in the first-line setting” said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, who presented the study at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
“These patients have a dismal prognosis and represent a high unmet need,” she added.
The current findings follow those from the IMpassion130 trial, which showed that the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy offered no survival benefit in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic TNBC despite a progression-free survival benefit on interim analysis.
Rapidly relapsing TNBC “represents one of most challenging clinical situations” because it is aggressive and “intrinsically resistant to standard therapies,” said Dr. Dent. It is also more common in younger patients with large primary tumors and no BRCA alterations.
“Most importantly, however, is that most trials actually exclude these patients,” she noted, “posing a real challenge for us in clinical practice.”
IMpassion132 enrolled 594 patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC who had experienced disease progression more than 12 months after their last treatment for early TNBC with curative intent.
Patients had received prior anthracycline and taxane therapy for but no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease.
Study participants were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with carboplatin-gemcitabine or capecitabine plus atezolizumab or placebo, with treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival.
Initially, all patients with TNBC who met the study criteria were enrolled in the randomized, phase 3, double-blinded trial; however, the trial was then amended to include only PD-L1–positive patients after the results of IMpassion130 “clearly showed us that the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibition were largely driven by those patients,” Dr. Dent explained.
The 354 patients with PD-L1–positive disease were “young,” she added, with a median age of 48 years. The youngest was 23 years old.
The majority (66%-69%) had a disease-free interval of less than 6 months after treatment with curative intent. Lung and/or liver metastases were present in 60%-62% of patients, and 18% had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.
After a median follow-up of 9.8 months, overall survival was a median of 12.1 months in the atezolizumab group vs 11.2 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .59).
A similar result was seen when looking at the modified intention-to-treat population, and when stratifying the patients by prespecified subgroup.
Dr. Dent pointed out that in the placebo group, patients treated with capecitabine had a median overall survival of 12.6 months vs 9.9 months in those given carboplatin-gemcitabine , which she described as “hypothesis generating” because “prior therapy may trigger a variety of resistance mechanisms.”
The disease-free interval also seemed to play a role in the placebo group. Patients who had a disease-free interval of 6 or more months prior to study enrollment had a median overall survival of 12.8 months vs 9.4 months in those with an interval of less than 6 months.
There were no significant differences in progression-free survival or duration of overall response between the atezolizumab and placebo groups.
“In terms of the safety data, clearly we’re getting better at identifying immune checkpoint inhibition toxicities and initiating therapies for these toxicities earlier,” Dr. Dent said, because there were “no new safety signals.”
The rate of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar between patients given atezolizumab and those assigned to placebo, at 65% vs 62%. Rates of grade 5 events were identical, at 1%.
Commenting on the study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, questioned the role for immunotherapy in patients with TNBC who experience early relapse.
This is not the first trial to fail to show a benefit in this space, she said. Collectively, these results make “me think that these tumors are pretty immunologically cold, making them less likely to benefit from checkpoint inhibition.”
The patients that do relapse, “have highly treatment refractory disease,” and “we need to think about other novel therapeutic strategies for this population,” she told this news organization.
IMpassion132 nevertheless represents a “unique opportunity to better understand the biology of these rapidly relapsing tumors, and hopefully use this information to develop more novel treatment approaches for this population,” she said.
“That being said, I do think that this is going to become an even more challenging area,” Dr. Tolaney said. “In the modern era, these patients are receiving multi-agent chemotherapy with preoperative checkpoint inhibition, and many then go on to receive additional systemic treatment in the adjuvant setting.”
The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.
Dr. Dent declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Tolaney declares relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Novartis, Nanonstring, and Cyclacel.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2024
Chatbots Seem More Empathetic Than Docs in Cancer Discussions
Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.
One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.
While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.
Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.
Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. : quality, empathy, and readability.
Q&A With Author of New Research
Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.
Question: What is novel about this study?
Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.
Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?
Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.
Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?
Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.
Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?
Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.
Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.
With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.
Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’
Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?
Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.
Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?
Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.
Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.
This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.
This Q&A was edited for clarity.
Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.
One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.
While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.
Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.
Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. : quality, empathy, and readability.
Q&A With Author of New Research
Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.
Question: What is novel about this study?
Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.
Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?
Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.
Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?
Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.
Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?
Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.
Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.
With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.
Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’
Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?
Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.
Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?
Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.
Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.
This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.
This Q&A was edited for clarity.
Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.
One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.
While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.
Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.
Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. : quality, empathy, and readability.
Q&A With Author of New Research
Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.
Question: What is novel about this study?
Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.
Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?
Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.
Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?
Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.
Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?
Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.
Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.
With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.
Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’
Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?
Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.
Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?
Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.
Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.
This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.
This Q&A was edited for clarity.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Tucatinib-Trastuzumab Benefit ‘Remarkable’ in HER2-positive mCRC
Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.
That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.
The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.
The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer
Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.
In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.
Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
Real-World Setting
Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.
“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.
Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.
“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Why It Works
In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.
“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.
“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.
“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.
Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
Barriers to Treatment
Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.
The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.
“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.
The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.
While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.
Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.
“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275,” she said.
What’s Next
In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.
MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.
That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.
The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.
The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer
Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.
In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.
Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
Real-World Setting
Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.
“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.
Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.
“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Why It Works
In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.
“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.
“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.
“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.
Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
Barriers to Treatment
Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.
The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.
“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.
The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.
While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.
Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.
“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275,” she said.
What’s Next
In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.
MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.
That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.
The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.
The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer
Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.
In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.
Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
Real-World Setting
Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.
“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.
Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.
“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Why It Works
In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.
“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.
“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.
“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.
Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
Barriers to Treatment
Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.
The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.
“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.
The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.
While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.
Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.
“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275,” she said.
What’s Next
In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.
MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Outside the Guidelines: Prostate Cancer Screening Overused in Older Men
In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).
In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.
To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).
“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.
For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.
Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.
Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.
While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.
While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.
In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low
Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.
If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.
Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.
“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.
“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening
Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.
“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.
However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.
Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.
Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.
“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.
Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
Difficult Discussions
Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.
“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.
“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”
Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”
The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.
“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
Life Expectancy Uncertainties
Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.”
Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.
Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.
“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.”
Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.
“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”
When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.
“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.
“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”
However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.
“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.
“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”
The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.
In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).
In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.
To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).
“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.
For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.
Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.
Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.
While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.
While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.
In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low
Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.
If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.
Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.
“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.
“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening
Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.
“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.
However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.
Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.
Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.
“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.
Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
Difficult Discussions
Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.
“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.
“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”
Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”
The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.
“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
Life Expectancy Uncertainties
Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.”
Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.
Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.
“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.”
Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.
“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”
When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.
“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.
“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”
However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.
“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.
“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”
The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.
In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).
In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.
To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).
“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.
For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.
Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.
Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.
While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.
While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.
In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low
Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.
If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.
Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.
“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.
“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening
Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.
“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.
However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.
Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.
Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.
“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.
Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
Difficult Discussions
Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.
“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.
“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”
Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”
The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.
“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
Life Expectancy Uncertainties
Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.”
Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.
Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.
“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.”
Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.
“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”
When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.
“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.
“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”
However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.
“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.
“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”
The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.
Hypofractionated Radiotherapy Limits Toxic Effects in Cervical Cancer
TOPLINE:
results from the phase 2 POHIM-CCRT trial suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- To date, no studies have assessed the treatment outcomes and toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT following radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer undergoing curative radiotherapy.
- The team analyzed outcomes from 79 patients undergoing hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.
- Patients were a median age of 48; 29.5% had stage IB to IIA disease, another 29.5% had stage IIB disease, and 41% had stage III disease. Patients also had at least one of the following criteria following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: lymph node metastasis (39.7%), parametrial invasion (54.4%), and positive resection margin (5.1%).
- The prescribed dose to the planning target volume was 40 Gy, delivered in 16 fractions to the whole pelvis, with any type of IMRT permitted. Overall, 71 patients also underwent concurrent weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2 of body surface area for three cycles), and eight received fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2 on days 1-5) with cisplatin (60 mg/m2 for two cycles).
- The primary endpoint was the incidence of acute grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary, and hematologic toxic effects during radiotherapy or within 3 months of completing radiotherapy.
TAKEAWAY:
- After radiotherapy, only two patients (2.5%) experienced acute grade 3 or higher toxic effects. One was hospitalized for enterocolitis on the last day of radiotherapy and developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy; the other experienced hematologic toxic effects and also developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy.
- No patients experienced late grade 3 or higher toxic effects.
- When assessing toxic effects of any grade, acute and late gastrointestinal tract toxicities occurred in 76% and 31.6% of patients, respectively; acute and late genitourinary toxicities, all grade 1, occurred in 19% and 24.1% of patients, respectively; and hematologic toxicities occurred in 29.1% and 6.3% of patients, respectively.
- Overall, at 3 years, 79.3% of patients were disease-free and 98% were alive. After a median follow-up of 43 months, 16 patients (20.3%) experienced disease recurrence, four of whom were salvaged and three of whom died.
IN PRACTICE:
“This nonrandomized controlled trial is the first prospective trial, to our knowledge, to show acceptable acute toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer in a postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy setting,” the authors said, adding that the rate of grade 3 or higher acute toxic effects of 2.5% reported in this study was “substantially lower than our initial hypothesis of less than 15%.”
However , in an accompanying editorial, Mark E. Bernard, MD, of the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, highlighted caveats to the study design and raised two core questions: “Should acute toxic effects be the primary endpoint of a single-group, phase 2 study using hypofractionation with fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy? Should the primary endpoint rather have been a cancer control endpoint, such as disease-free survival, overall survival, or local control?”
Still, Dr. Bernard wrote, “This trial does help lay the foundation for future pelvic hypofractionated trials with concurrent chemotherapy, especially for gynecological malignant tumors.”
SOURCE:
The research, led by Won Park, MD, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, was published in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The trial is a single-arm study, with a short follow-up time. In the editorial, Bernard listed several limitations, including the fact that patients received fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy than what’s typically given in this population.
DISCLOSURES:
No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
results from the phase 2 POHIM-CCRT trial suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- To date, no studies have assessed the treatment outcomes and toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT following radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer undergoing curative radiotherapy.
- The team analyzed outcomes from 79 patients undergoing hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.
- Patients were a median age of 48; 29.5% had stage IB to IIA disease, another 29.5% had stage IIB disease, and 41% had stage III disease. Patients also had at least one of the following criteria following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: lymph node metastasis (39.7%), parametrial invasion (54.4%), and positive resection margin (5.1%).
- The prescribed dose to the planning target volume was 40 Gy, delivered in 16 fractions to the whole pelvis, with any type of IMRT permitted. Overall, 71 patients also underwent concurrent weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2 of body surface area for three cycles), and eight received fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2 on days 1-5) with cisplatin (60 mg/m2 for two cycles).
- The primary endpoint was the incidence of acute grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary, and hematologic toxic effects during radiotherapy or within 3 months of completing radiotherapy.
TAKEAWAY:
- After radiotherapy, only two patients (2.5%) experienced acute grade 3 or higher toxic effects. One was hospitalized for enterocolitis on the last day of radiotherapy and developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy; the other experienced hematologic toxic effects and also developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy.
- No patients experienced late grade 3 or higher toxic effects.
- When assessing toxic effects of any grade, acute and late gastrointestinal tract toxicities occurred in 76% and 31.6% of patients, respectively; acute and late genitourinary toxicities, all grade 1, occurred in 19% and 24.1% of patients, respectively; and hematologic toxicities occurred in 29.1% and 6.3% of patients, respectively.
- Overall, at 3 years, 79.3% of patients were disease-free and 98% were alive. After a median follow-up of 43 months, 16 patients (20.3%) experienced disease recurrence, four of whom were salvaged and three of whom died.
IN PRACTICE:
“This nonrandomized controlled trial is the first prospective trial, to our knowledge, to show acceptable acute toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer in a postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy setting,” the authors said, adding that the rate of grade 3 or higher acute toxic effects of 2.5% reported in this study was “substantially lower than our initial hypothesis of less than 15%.”
However , in an accompanying editorial, Mark E. Bernard, MD, of the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, highlighted caveats to the study design and raised two core questions: “Should acute toxic effects be the primary endpoint of a single-group, phase 2 study using hypofractionation with fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy? Should the primary endpoint rather have been a cancer control endpoint, such as disease-free survival, overall survival, or local control?”
Still, Dr. Bernard wrote, “This trial does help lay the foundation for future pelvic hypofractionated trials with concurrent chemotherapy, especially for gynecological malignant tumors.”
SOURCE:
The research, led by Won Park, MD, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, was published in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The trial is a single-arm study, with a short follow-up time. In the editorial, Bernard listed several limitations, including the fact that patients received fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy than what’s typically given in this population.
DISCLOSURES:
No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
results from the phase 2 POHIM-CCRT trial suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- To date, no studies have assessed the treatment outcomes and toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT following radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer undergoing curative radiotherapy.
- The team analyzed outcomes from 79 patients undergoing hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.
- Patients were a median age of 48; 29.5% had stage IB to IIA disease, another 29.5% had stage IIB disease, and 41% had stage III disease. Patients also had at least one of the following criteria following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: lymph node metastasis (39.7%), parametrial invasion (54.4%), and positive resection margin (5.1%).
- The prescribed dose to the planning target volume was 40 Gy, delivered in 16 fractions to the whole pelvis, with any type of IMRT permitted. Overall, 71 patients also underwent concurrent weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2 of body surface area for three cycles), and eight received fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2 on days 1-5) with cisplatin (60 mg/m2 for two cycles).
- The primary endpoint was the incidence of acute grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary, and hematologic toxic effects during radiotherapy or within 3 months of completing radiotherapy.
TAKEAWAY:
- After radiotherapy, only two patients (2.5%) experienced acute grade 3 or higher toxic effects. One was hospitalized for enterocolitis on the last day of radiotherapy and developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy; the other experienced hematologic toxic effects and also developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy.
- No patients experienced late grade 3 or higher toxic effects.
- When assessing toxic effects of any grade, acute and late gastrointestinal tract toxicities occurred in 76% and 31.6% of patients, respectively; acute and late genitourinary toxicities, all grade 1, occurred in 19% and 24.1% of patients, respectively; and hematologic toxicities occurred in 29.1% and 6.3% of patients, respectively.
- Overall, at 3 years, 79.3% of patients were disease-free and 98% were alive. After a median follow-up of 43 months, 16 patients (20.3%) experienced disease recurrence, four of whom were salvaged and three of whom died.
IN PRACTICE:
“This nonrandomized controlled trial is the first prospective trial, to our knowledge, to show acceptable acute toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer in a postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy setting,” the authors said, adding that the rate of grade 3 or higher acute toxic effects of 2.5% reported in this study was “substantially lower than our initial hypothesis of less than 15%.”
However , in an accompanying editorial, Mark E. Bernard, MD, of the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, highlighted caveats to the study design and raised two core questions: “Should acute toxic effects be the primary endpoint of a single-group, phase 2 study using hypofractionation with fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy? Should the primary endpoint rather have been a cancer control endpoint, such as disease-free survival, overall survival, or local control?”
Still, Dr. Bernard wrote, “This trial does help lay the foundation for future pelvic hypofractionated trials with concurrent chemotherapy, especially for gynecological malignant tumors.”
SOURCE:
The research, led by Won Park, MD, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, was published in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The trial is a single-arm study, with a short follow-up time. In the editorial, Bernard listed several limitations, including the fact that patients received fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy than what’s typically given in this population.
DISCLOSURES:
No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Survey Spotlights Identification of Dermatologic Adverse Events From Cancer Therapies
“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.
“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.
“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.
FROM AAD 2024
Darker Skin Tones Underrepresented on Skin Cancer Education Websites
“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”
For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker).
Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.
In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.
The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.
“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”
The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”
For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker).
Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.
In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.
The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.
“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”
The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”
For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker).
Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.
In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.
The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.
“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”
The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JOURNAL OF DRUGS IN DERMATOLOGY
New mRNA Vaccines in Development for Cancer and Infections
Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.
To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
Instability Challenge
Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.
With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
Improved Scalability
“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”
Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.
In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.
Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.
Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
Cancer Immunotherapy
Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.
Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.
The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
Genetic Engineering
Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.
Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.
In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.
Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
Research in Infections
Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.
“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”
“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”
Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.
An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
Elaborate Purification Process
Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.
These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”
Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
Prevention and Therapy
In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.
“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.
“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.
To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
Instability Challenge
Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.
With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
Improved Scalability
“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”
Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.
In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.
Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.
Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
Cancer Immunotherapy
Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.
Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.
The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
Genetic Engineering
Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.
Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.
In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.
Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
Research in Infections
Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.
“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”
“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”
Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.
An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
Elaborate Purification Process
Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.
These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”
Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
Prevention and Therapy
In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.
“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.
“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.
To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
Instability Challenge
Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.
With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
Improved Scalability
“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”
Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.
In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.
Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.
Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
Cancer Immunotherapy
Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.
Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.
The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
Genetic Engineering
Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.
Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.
In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.
Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
Research in Infections
Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.
“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”
“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”
Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.
An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
Elaborate Purification Process
Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.
These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”
Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
Prevention and Therapy
In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.
“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.
“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.