User login
KRAS Inhibitors in Pancreatic Cancer: Hope on the Horizon?
Finding effective treatments for the disease continues to be a challenge.
No significant new therapies in pancreatic cancer have emerged in the past 20 years, explained John Marshall, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Oncology researchers have long eyed a potential holy grail target: the KRAS oncogene. Present in about 90% of patients with pancreatic cancer, KRAS mutations are considered a key driver of the disease. But for decades, KRAS was considered “undruggable.”
Until recently.
In the past 2 years, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved two KRAS inhibitors — sotorasib and adagrasib — to treat certain colorectal and lung cancers.
A pipeline of KRAS inhibitors targeting pancreatic cancer has now emerged, leaving some oncologists feeling optimistic about the future of treating the disease.
“I think KRAS inhibitors — [maybe not alone] but as a foundational agent for combinations — are really poised to transform how we care for patients,” said Andrew Aguirre, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who heads a lab focused on RAS signaling and pancreatic cancer. These agents won’t necessarily cure pancreatic cancer but will be “part of the solution” to improve outcomes, Dr. Aguirre said.
A Challenging Cancer
Pharmaceutical companies currently have at least eight agents in development and are conducting dozens of KRAS/RAS studies that focus on or include pancreatic cancer.
But it’s still early days on the evidence front.
The investigational drugs are only in phase 1/2 testing, and the reported outcomes have been limited so far.
The current mainstay frontline options in pancreatic cancer largely center on chemotherapy combinations. These include FOLFIRINOX (irinotecan, fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and capecitabine. The four-drug chemotherapy combination NALIRIFOX — a slight tweak on FOLFIRINOX — was also recently approved in the first-line setting.
Patient outcomes on these chemotherapy combinations have been modest, with median overall survival in the metastatic setting ranging from 6.7 months to 11.1 months.
And although two KRAS inhibitors, sotorasib and adagrasib, are currently on the US market, neither is approved for pancreatic cancer, and use of these agents to treat pancreatic cancer would be limited. Only about 1%-2% of tumors have the specific KRAS G12C mutation that these drugs target. These KRAS inhibitors have shown limited efficacy in pancreatic cancer.
For instance, a small study evaluating sotorasib in pancreatic cancer found that only 21% of 38 patients with metastatic disease who carried the G12C mutation achieved an objective response, and no patients had a complete response. In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 4 months and median overall survival was 6.9 months, with 19.6% of patients alive at 12 months.
In pancreatic cancer, better targets for KRAS inhibitors include the G12D mutation, carried by about 44% of tumors; G12V, present in 29% of tumors; G12R, present in 20%; and pan-RAS inhibitors, which cover all mutations.
At this year’s American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, Dr. Aguirre discussed the pipeline of investigational KRAS agents targeting some of these more relevant mutations.
Results from a recent phase 1 study, evaluating the investigational pan-RAS inhibitor RMC-6236 from Revolution Medicines, showed initial promise. The study revealed an objective response rate at 14 weeks of 20% in 76 patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated in the second line. The disease control rate reached almost 90% at 14 weeks.
Median progression-free survival was 8.1 months, an improvement over the 2-3.5 months expected with additional chemotherapy. Overall survival was not reached but started at 8.5 months. The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events — most commonly rash, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia — was 22%.
Revolution Medicines is now planning a phase 3 trial.
Other investigational KRAS inhibitors, outside of KRAS G12C agents, are entering or are in early trials, but without results reported yet.
While there’s “room for improvement,” such studies only offer “proof of concept” that KRAS inhibition has potential, Dr. Aguirre said.
Oncologists may ultimately see better outcomes by expanding when and how patients receive these drugs. The research to date has been limited to monotherapy in previously treated patients with metastatic disease, which leaves the door open to explore the inhibitors in earlier lines of treatment; in patients with resectable disease; and in combination with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or other targeted approaches, Dr. Aguirre explained.
In his own lab, Dr. Aguirre and colleagues have data suggesting that combining KRAS inhibitors and chemotherapy may bring more benefit than either treatment alone.
Pancreatic tumors generally comprise a mix of both basal-like and classical cell subtypes, and basal-like cells have shown more resistance to chemotherapy. Dr. Aguirre’s team has found that basal-like cells may be more sensitive to KRAS inhibitors, which suggests that combining these inhibitors with chemotherapy could improve patient outcomes.
Alan Venook, MD, said he “remains to be convinced” about the benefit of KRAS inhibition because he’s seen many other promising approaches, such as pegylated hyaluronidase, show initial potential but then fall flat in phase 3 testing.
“We tend to get excited about preliminary data,” said Dr. Venook, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco. “At the moment, there’s no data that suggests [KRAS inhibition] is going to be a game changer.”
Mutation testing in patients with pancreatic cancer will be critical to identify who might benefit from different KRAS agents, and a subset of patients may do very well.
But with many patients presenting with advanced disease, “I just don’t see how turning off the disease [process] can happen adequately enough to stop it from progressing,” Dr. Venook said. And “is it a big advance to keep disease from progressing over 3 or 6 months?”
Dr. Aguirre said he respects the caution. Much work remains to be done, including how to improve response rates and durability and to overcome the resistance that sets in with monotherapy.
Still, “I think there’s tremendous reason for optimism right now,” Dr. Aguirre said.
Although the benefits of these agents may be limited, any improvement in pancreatic cancer treatment would still be a “game changer,” Dr. Marshall said. And that’s because “we need a new game.”
Dr. Aguirre is an advisor and/or disclosed research funding from companies developing KRAS/RAS inhibitors, including Revolution Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Mirati. Dr. Venook did not have any disclosures. Dr. Marshall has ties to numerous companies, including Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Merck, and Pfizer. He is also a Medscape Oncology editorial advisor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Finding effective treatments for the disease continues to be a challenge.
No significant new therapies in pancreatic cancer have emerged in the past 20 years, explained John Marshall, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Oncology researchers have long eyed a potential holy grail target: the KRAS oncogene. Present in about 90% of patients with pancreatic cancer, KRAS mutations are considered a key driver of the disease. But for decades, KRAS was considered “undruggable.”
Until recently.
In the past 2 years, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved two KRAS inhibitors — sotorasib and adagrasib — to treat certain colorectal and lung cancers.
A pipeline of KRAS inhibitors targeting pancreatic cancer has now emerged, leaving some oncologists feeling optimistic about the future of treating the disease.
“I think KRAS inhibitors — [maybe not alone] but as a foundational agent for combinations — are really poised to transform how we care for patients,” said Andrew Aguirre, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who heads a lab focused on RAS signaling and pancreatic cancer. These agents won’t necessarily cure pancreatic cancer but will be “part of the solution” to improve outcomes, Dr. Aguirre said.
A Challenging Cancer
Pharmaceutical companies currently have at least eight agents in development and are conducting dozens of KRAS/RAS studies that focus on or include pancreatic cancer.
But it’s still early days on the evidence front.
The investigational drugs are only in phase 1/2 testing, and the reported outcomes have been limited so far.
The current mainstay frontline options in pancreatic cancer largely center on chemotherapy combinations. These include FOLFIRINOX (irinotecan, fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and capecitabine. The four-drug chemotherapy combination NALIRIFOX — a slight tweak on FOLFIRINOX — was also recently approved in the first-line setting.
Patient outcomes on these chemotherapy combinations have been modest, with median overall survival in the metastatic setting ranging from 6.7 months to 11.1 months.
And although two KRAS inhibitors, sotorasib and adagrasib, are currently on the US market, neither is approved for pancreatic cancer, and use of these agents to treat pancreatic cancer would be limited. Only about 1%-2% of tumors have the specific KRAS G12C mutation that these drugs target. These KRAS inhibitors have shown limited efficacy in pancreatic cancer.
For instance, a small study evaluating sotorasib in pancreatic cancer found that only 21% of 38 patients with metastatic disease who carried the G12C mutation achieved an objective response, and no patients had a complete response. In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 4 months and median overall survival was 6.9 months, with 19.6% of patients alive at 12 months.
In pancreatic cancer, better targets for KRAS inhibitors include the G12D mutation, carried by about 44% of tumors; G12V, present in 29% of tumors; G12R, present in 20%; and pan-RAS inhibitors, which cover all mutations.
At this year’s American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, Dr. Aguirre discussed the pipeline of investigational KRAS agents targeting some of these more relevant mutations.
Results from a recent phase 1 study, evaluating the investigational pan-RAS inhibitor RMC-6236 from Revolution Medicines, showed initial promise. The study revealed an objective response rate at 14 weeks of 20% in 76 patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated in the second line. The disease control rate reached almost 90% at 14 weeks.
Median progression-free survival was 8.1 months, an improvement over the 2-3.5 months expected with additional chemotherapy. Overall survival was not reached but started at 8.5 months. The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events — most commonly rash, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia — was 22%.
Revolution Medicines is now planning a phase 3 trial.
Other investigational KRAS inhibitors, outside of KRAS G12C agents, are entering or are in early trials, but without results reported yet.
While there’s “room for improvement,” such studies only offer “proof of concept” that KRAS inhibition has potential, Dr. Aguirre said.
Oncologists may ultimately see better outcomes by expanding when and how patients receive these drugs. The research to date has been limited to monotherapy in previously treated patients with metastatic disease, which leaves the door open to explore the inhibitors in earlier lines of treatment; in patients with resectable disease; and in combination with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or other targeted approaches, Dr. Aguirre explained.
In his own lab, Dr. Aguirre and colleagues have data suggesting that combining KRAS inhibitors and chemotherapy may bring more benefit than either treatment alone.
Pancreatic tumors generally comprise a mix of both basal-like and classical cell subtypes, and basal-like cells have shown more resistance to chemotherapy. Dr. Aguirre’s team has found that basal-like cells may be more sensitive to KRAS inhibitors, which suggests that combining these inhibitors with chemotherapy could improve patient outcomes.
Alan Venook, MD, said he “remains to be convinced” about the benefit of KRAS inhibition because he’s seen many other promising approaches, such as pegylated hyaluronidase, show initial potential but then fall flat in phase 3 testing.
“We tend to get excited about preliminary data,” said Dr. Venook, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco. “At the moment, there’s no data that suggests [KRAS inhibition] is going to be a game changer.”
Mutation testing in patients with pancreatic cancer will be critical to identify who might benefit from different KRAS agents, and a subset of patients may do very well.
But with many patients presenting with advanced disease, “I just don’t see how turning off the disease [process] can happen adequately enough to stop it from progressing,” Dr. Venook said. And “is it a big advance to keep disease from progressing over 3 or 6 months?”
Dr. Aguirre said he respects the caution. Much work remains to be done, including how to improve response rates and durability and to overcome the resistance that sets in with monotherapy.
Still, “I think there’s tremendous reason for optimism right now,” Dr. Aguirre said.
Although the benefits of these agents may be limited, any improvement in pancreatic cancer treatment would still be a “game changer,” Dr. Marshall said. And that’s because “we need a new game.”
Dr. Aguirre is an advisor and/or disclosed research funding from companies developing KRAS/RAS inhibitors, including Revolution Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Mirati. Dr. Venook did not have any disclosures. Dr. Marshall has ties to numerous companies, including Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Merck, and Pfizer. He is also a Medscape Oncology editorial advisor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Finding effective treatments for the disease continues to be a challenge.
No significant new therapies in pancreatic cancer have emerged in the past 20 years, explained John Marshall, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Oncology researchers have long eyed a potential holy grail target: the KRAS oncogene. Present in about 90% of patients with pancreatic cancer, KRAS mutations are considered a key driver of the disease. But for decades, KRAS was considered “undruggable.”
Until recently.
In the past 2 years, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved two KRAS inhibitors — sotorasib and adagrasib — to treat certain colorectal and lung cancers.
A pipeline of KRAS inhibitors targeting pancreatic cancer has now emerged, leaving some oncologists feeling optimistic about the future of treating the disease.
“I think KRAS inhibitors — [maybe not alone] but as a foundational agent for combinations — are really poised to transform how we care for patients,” said Andrew Aguirre, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who heads a lab focused on RAS signaling and pancreatic cancer. These agents won’t necessarily cure pancreatic cancer but will be “part of the solution” to improve outcomes, Dr. Aguirre said.
A Challenging Cancer
Pharmaceutical companies currently have at least eight agents in development and are conducting dozens of KRAS/RAS studies that focus on or include pancreatic cancer.
But it’s still early days on the evidence front.
The investigational drugs are only in phase 1/2 testing, and the reported outcomes have been limited so far.
The current mainstay frontline options in pancreatic cancer largely center on chemotherapy combinations. These include FOLFIRINOX (irinotecan, fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and capecitabine. The four-drug chemotherapy combination NALIRIFOX — a slight tweak on FOLFIRINOX — was also recently approved in the first-line setting.
Patient outcomes on these chemotherapy combinations have been modest, with median overall survival in the metastatic setting ranging from 6.7 months to 11.1 months.
And although two KRAS inhibitors, sotorasib and adagrasib, are currently on the US market, neither is approved for pancreatic cancer, and use of these agents to treat pancreatic cancer would be limited. Only about 1%-2% of tumors have the specific KRAS G12C mutation that these drugs target. These KRAS inhibitors have shown limited efficacy in pancreatic cancer.
For instance, a small study evaluating sotorasib in pancreatic cancer found that only 21% of 38 patients with metastatic disease who carried the G12C mutation achieved an objective response, and no patients had a complete response. In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 4 months and median overall survival was 6.9 months, with 19.6% of patients alive at 12 months.
In pancreatic cancer, better targets for KRAS inhibitors include the G12D mutation, carried by about 44% of tumors; G12V, present in 29% of tumors; G12R, present in 20%; and pan-RAS inhibitors, which cover all mutations.
At this year’s American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, Dr. Aguirre discussed the pipeline of investigational KRAS agents targeting some of these more relevant mutations.
Results from a recent phase 1 study, evaluating the investigational pan-RAS inhibitor RMC-6236 from Revolution Medicines, showed initial promise. The study revealed an objective response rate at 14 weeks of 20% in 76 patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated in the second line. The disease control rate reached almost 90% at 14 weeks.
Median progression-free survival was 8.1 months, an improvement over the 2-3.5 months expected with additional chemotherapy. Overall survival was not reached but started at 8.5 months. The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events — most commonly rash, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia — was 22%.
Revolution Medicines is now planning a phase 3 trial.
Other investigational KRAS inhibitors, outside of KRAS G12C agents, are entering or are in early trials, but without results reported yet.
While there’s “room for improvement,” such studies only offer “proof of concept” that KRAS inhibition has potential, Dr. Aguirre said.
Oncologists may ultimately see better outcomes by expanding when and how patients receive these drugs. The research to date has been limited to monotherapy in previously treated patients with metastatic disease, which leaves the door open to explore the inhibitors in earlier lines of treatment; in patients with resectable disease; and in combination with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or other targeted approaches, Dr. Aguirre explained.
In his own lab, Dr. Aguirre and colleagues have data suggesting that combining KRAS inhibitors and chemotherapy may bring more benefit than either treatment alone.
Pancreatic tumors generally comprise a mix of both basal-like and classical cell subtypes, and basal-like cells have shown more resistance to chemotherapy. Dr. Aguirre’s team has found that basal-like cells may be more sensitive to KRAS inhibitors, which suggests that combining these inhibitors with chemotherapy could improve patient outcomes.
Alan Venook, MD, said he “remains to be convinced” about the benefit of KRAS inhibition because he’s seen many other promising approaches, such as pegylated hyaluronidase, show initial potential but then fall flat in phase 3 testing.
“We tend to get excited about preliminary data,” said Dr. Venook, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco. “At the moment, there’s no data that suggests [KRAS inhibition] is going to be a game changer.”
Mutation testing in patients with pancreatic cancer will be critical to identify who might benefit from different KRAS agents, and a subset of patients may do very well.
But with many patients presenting with advanced disease, “I just don’t see how turning off the disease [process] can happen adequately enough to stop it from progressing,” Dr. Venook said. And “is it a big advance to keep disease from progressing over 3 or 6 months?”
Dr. Aguirre said he respects the caution. Much work remains to be done, including how to improve response rates and durability and to overcome the resistance that sets in with monotherapy.
Still, “I think there’s tremendous reason for optimism right now,” Dr. Aguirre said.
Although the benefits of these agents may be limited, any improvement in pancreatic cancer treatment would still be a “game changer,” Dr. Marshall said. And that’s because “we need a new game.”
Dr. Aguirre is an advisor and/or disclosed research funding from companies developing KRAS/RAS inhibitors, including Revolution Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Mirati. Dr. Venook did not have any disclosures. Dr. Marshall has ties to numerous companies, including Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Merck, and Pfizer. He is also a Medscape Oncology editorial advisor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ivonescimab: Possible New First-Line Standard in PD-L1–Positive Advanced NSCLC?
according to recent findings from the HARMONi-2 trial.
“This is the first randomized, phase 3 study to demonstrate a clinically significant improvement in efficacy with a novel drug compared to pembrolizumab in advanced NSCLC,” said study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, with Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital in China,
The results highlight ivonescimab’s potential to become a “new standard of care” in advanced PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC, said Dr. Zhou, who presented the analysis at the annual International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer in San Diego. Dr. Zhou is president-elect of the IASLC.
Ivonescimab (AK112) is a novel, potentially first-in-class investigational bispecific antibody that targets PD-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) developed by Akeso Biopharma, which funded the HARMONi-2 trial.
Conducted at 55 centers in China, HARMONi-2 enrolled 398 patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1, PD-L1 positive (with at least 1% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1), and no EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements.
Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive ivonescimab (20 mg/kg) or pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks. The two groups were well balanced, and randomization was stratified by histology (squamous vs nonsquamous), clinical stage (IIIB/IIIC vs IV) and PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 of 1%-49% vs 50% or greater).
Dr. Zhou reported that patients who received ivonescimab were progression free for nearly twice as long as those on pembrolizumab — a median of 11.1 vs 5.8 months, indicating a 49% lower risk for progression or death (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001).
The meaningful improvement in PFS with ivonescimab, compared with pembrolizumab, was “broadly consistent” in all prespecified subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted. That included patients with squamous NSCLC (HR, 0.48) and nonsquamous NSCLC (HR, 0.54), those with PD-L1 expression of 1%-49% (HR, 0.54) and 50% or higher (HR, 0.46), as well as those with liver metastases (HR, 0.47) and brain metastases (HR, 0.55).
The PFS benefit seen with ivonescimab in HARMONi-2 is “striking,” and the results “highlight the potential benefits of combined VEGF and PD-1 blockade together,” said John Heymach, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who served as discussant for the study.
Ivonescimab also led to a higher objective response rate (50% vs 38.5%) and disease control rate (89.9% vs 70.5%).
Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in more patients receiving ivonescimab — 29.4% vs 15.6% on pembrolizumab. The difference largely stemmed from higher rates of proteinuria, hypertension, and lab abnormalities.
The rates of serious treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups —20.8% in the ivonescimab group and 16.1% in the pembrolizumab group. Rates of grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events were also similar, occurring in 7% of patients treated with ivonescimab and 8% of those receiving pembrolizumab.
In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, in particular, ivonescimab demonstrated a “very manageable” safety profile, Dr. Zhou noted. In this group, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22.2% of patients (vs 18.7% receiving pembrolizumab).
Ivonescimab was associated with comparable but “numerically better” time to deterioration of global health status, based on the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire, Dr. Zhou said.
Although the “really impressive and clinically meaningful” PFS benefits extended across different subgroups, “we await the overall survival results and additional studies done outside of China to confirm the benefit seen,” Dr. Heymach noted.
He also cautioned that, for patients with low to intermediate PD-L1 expression (1%-49%), pembrolizumab monotherapy “would not be the relevant comparator in the US and the rest of the world, and different study designs are going to be required for those populations.”
Based on the results of HARMONi-2, Akeso’s partner, Summit Therapeutics, plans to initiate HARMONi-7 in early 2025.
HARMONi-7 is currently planned as a multiregional, phase 3 clinical trial that will compare ivonescimab monotherapy to pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors have high PD-L1 expression (50% or more).
Dr. Zhou has received consulting fees from Qilu Pharmaceutical, Hengrui, and TopAlliance Biosciences and honoraria from Eli Lilly China, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Qilu, Hengrui, Innovent Biologics, Alice, C-Stone, Luye Pharma, TopAlliance Biosciences, Amoy Diagnostics, and AnHeart Therapeutics. Dr. Heymach is a consultant for AbbVie, AnHeart Therapeutics, ArriVent Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BioCurity Pharmaceuticals, BioNTech, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to recent findings from the HARMONi-2 trial.
“This is the first randomized, phase 3 study to demonstrate a clinically significant improvement in efficacy with a novel drug compared to pembrolizumab in advanced NSCLC,” said study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, with Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital in China,
The results highlight ivonescimab’s potential to become a “new standard of care” in advanced PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC, said Dr. Zhou, who presented the analysis at the annual International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer in San Diego. Dr. Zhou is president-elect of the IASLC.
Ivonescimab (AK112) is a novel, potentially first-in-class investigational bispecific antibody that targets PD-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) developed by Akeso Biopharma, which funded the HARMONi-2 trial.
Conducted at 55 centers in China, HARMONi-2 enrolled 398 patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1, PD-L1 positive (with at least 1% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1), and no EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements.
Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive ivonescimab (20 mg/kg) or pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks. The two groups were well balanced, and randomization was stratified by histology (squamous vs nonsquamous), clinical stage (IIIB/IIIC vs IV) and PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 of 1%-49% vs 50% or greater).
Dr. Zhou reported that patients who received ivonescimab were progression free for nearly twice as long as those on pembrolizumab — a median of 11.1 vs 5.8 months, indicating a 49% lower risk for progression or death (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001).
The meaningful improvement in PFS with ivonescimab, compared with pembrolizumab, was “broadly consistent” in all prespecified subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted. That included patients with squamous NSCLC (HR, 0.48) and nonsquamous NSCLC (HR, 0.54), those with PD-L1 expression of 1%-49% (HR, 0.54) and 50% or higher (HR, 0.46), as well as those with liver metastases (HR, 0.47) and brain metastases (HR, 0.55).
The PFS benefit seen with ivonescimab in HARMONi-2 is “striking,” and the results “highlight the potential benefits of combined VEGF and PD-1 blockade together,” said John Heymach, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who served as discussant for the study.
Ivonescimab also led to a higher objective response rate (50% vs 38.5%) and disease control rate (89.9% vs 70.5%).
Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in more patients receiving ivonescimab — 29.4% vs 15.6% on pembrolizumab. The difference largely stemmed from higher rates of proteinuria, hypertension, and lab abnormalities.
The rates of serious treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups —20.8% in the ivonescimab group and 16.1% in the pembrolizumab group. Rates of grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events were also similar, occurring in 7% of patients treated with ivonescimab and 8% of those receiving pembrolizumab.
In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, in particular, ivonescimab demonstrated a “very manageable” safety profile, Dr. Zhou noted. In this group, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22.2% of patients (vs 18.7% receiving pembrolizumab).
Ivonescimab was associated with comparable but “numerically better” time to deterioration of global health status, based on the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire, Dr. Zhou said.
Although the “really impressive and clinically meaningful” PFS benefits extended across different subgroups, “we await the overall survival results and additional studies done outside of China to confirm the benefit seen,” Dr. Heymach noted.
He also cautioned that, for patients with low to intermediate PD-L1 expression (1%-49%), pembrolizumab monotherapy “would not be the relevant comparator in the US and the rest of the world, and different study designs are going to be required for those populations.”
Based on the results of HARMONi-2, Akeso’s partner, Summit Therapeutics, plans to initiate HARMONi-7 in early 2025.
HARMONi-7 is currently planned as a multiregional, phase 3 clinical trial that will compare ivonescimab monotherapy to pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors have high PD-L1 expression (50% or more).
Dr. Zhou has received consulting fees from Qilu Pharmaceutical, Hengrui, and TopAlliance Biosciences and honoraria from Eli Lilly China, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Qilu, Hengrui, Innovent Biologics, Alice, C-Stone, Luye Pharma, TopAlliance Biosciences, Amoy Diagnostics, and AnHeart Therapeutics. Dr. Heymach is a consultant for AbbVie, AnHeart Therapeutics, ArriVent Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BioCurity Pharmaceuticals, BioNTech, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to recent findings from the HARMONi-2 trial.
“This is the first randomized, phase 3 study to demonstrate a clinically significant improvement in efficacy with a novel drug compared to pembrolizumab in advanced NSCLC,” said study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, with Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital in China,
The results highlight ivonescimab’s potential to become a “new standard of care” in advanced PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC, said Dr. Zhou, who presented the analysis at the annual International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer in San Diego. Dr. Zhou is president-elect of the IASLC.
Ivonescimab (AK112) is a novel, potentially first-in-class investigational bispecific antibody that targets PD-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) developed by Akeso Biopharma, which funded the HARMONi-2 trial.
Conducted at 55 centers in China, HARMONi-2 enrolled 398 patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1, PD-L1 positive (with at least 1% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1), and no EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements.
Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive ivonescimab (20 mg/kg) or pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks. The two groups were well balanced, and randomization was stratified by histology (squamous vs nonsquamous), clinical stage (IIIB/IIIC vs IV) and PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 of 1%-49% vs 50% or greater).
Dr. Zhou reported that patients who received ivonescimab were progression free for nearly twice as long as those on pembrolizumab — a median of 11.1 vs 5.8 months, indicating a 49% lower risk for progression or death (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001).
The meaningful improvement in PFS with ivonescimab, compared with pembrolizumab, was “broadly consistent” in all prespecified subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted. That included patients with squamous NSCLC (HR, 0.48) and nonsquamous NSCLC (HR, 0.54), those with PD-L1 expression of 1%-49% (HR, 0.54) and 50% or higher (HR, 0.46), as well as those with liver metastases (HR, 0.47) and brain metastases (HR, 0.55).
The PFS benefit seen with ivonescimab in HARMONi-2 is “striking,” and the results “highlight the potential benefits of combined VEGF and PD-1 blockade together,” said John Heymach, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who served as discussant for the study.
Ivonescimab also led to a higher objective response rate (50% vs 38.5%) and disease control rate (89.9% vs 70.5%).
Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in more patients receiving ivonescimab — 29.4% vs 15.6% on pembrolizumab. The difference largely stemmed from higher rates of proteinuria, hypertension, and lab abnormalities.
The rates of serious treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups —20.8% in the ivonescimab group and 16.1% in the pembrolizumab group. Rates of grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events were also similar, occurring in 7% of patients treated with ivonescimab and 8% of those receiving pembrolizumab.
In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, in particular, ivonescimab demonstrated a “very manageable” safety profile, Dr. Zhou noted. In this group, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22.2% of patients (vs 18.7% receiving pembrolizumab).
Ivonescimab was associated with comparable but “numerically better” time to deterioration of global health status, based on the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire, Dr. Zhou said.
Although the “really impressive and clinically meaningful” PFS benefits extended across different subgroups, “we await the overall survival results and additional studies done outside of China to confirm the benefit seen,” Dr. Heymach noted.
He also cautioned that, for patients with low to intermediate PD-L1 expression (1%-49%), pembrolizumab monotherapy “would not be the relevant comparator in the US and the rest of the world, and different study designs are going to be required for those populations.”
Based on the results of HARMONi-2, Akeso’s partner, Summit Therapeutics, plans to initiate HARMONi-7 in early 2025.
HARMONi-7 is currently planned as a multiregional, phase 3 clinical trial that will compare ivonescimab monotherapy to pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors have high PD-L1 expression (50% or more).
Dr. Zhou has received consulting fees from Qilu Pharmaceutical, Hengrui, and TopAlliance Biosciences and honoraria from Eli Lilly China, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Qilu, Hengrui, Innovent Biologics, Alice, C-Stone, Luye Pharma, TopAlliance Biosciences, Amoy Diagnostics, and AnHeart Therapeutics. Dr. Heymach is a consultant for AbbVie, AnHeart Therapeutics, ArriVent Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BioCurity Pharmaceuticals, BioNTech, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM WCLC 2024
Could Aspirin Avert Bad Outcomes in Leukemia?
A new analysis hints that there may be a benefit from aspirin for hospitalized patients with leukemia. In a preliminary study, researchers found that aspirin users had much lower odds of intracranial bleeding, deep vein thrombosis, in-hospital mortality, and septic stroke.
Aspirin users also spent less time in the hospital and had less costly care.
No one is suggesting that clinicians give aspirin to hospitalized patients with leukemia when the drug is not otherwise indicated. However, the findings, released at the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO 2024) meeting in Houston, do indicate that more research is warranted, study lead author Jayalekshmi Jayakumar, MD, of the Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York City, said in a presentation.
“We hope our study can act as background for further prospective and experimental studies to explore this association,” she said. “If we can establish causation, then aspirin has a potential to be a thromboprophylactic agent to enhance outcomes and reduce resource utilization among leukemia hospitalizations.”
Dr. Jayakumar noted that previous research has suggested aspirin may help prevent deep vein thrombosis in patients with breast and pancreatic cancer. And in blood cancer, animal research has suggested that aspirin may “promote apoptosis in leukemia cells and decrease the spread of leukemia cells through platelet inhibition,” she said.
However, “we do not have any prospective or retrospective studies to establish causation or to see if this actually has some value within the clinical practice,” she noted.
Dr. Jayakumar stated that new study aims to detect whether aspirin may be beneficial in leukemia. She and her colleagues retrospectively tracked 1,663,149 US hospitalizations of patients with leukemia from 2016 to 2020 via the National Inpatient Sample. Of those patients, 11.2% used aspirin, although the data didn’t say whether they started it during hospitalization, and dosages were not reported. Aspirin users were older (mean age, 74.53 years vs 64.83 years in nonusers).
After adjustment for confounders, aspirin users had lower odds of several conditions than nonusers:
- Epistaxis (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.72; P < .001)
- Hemoptysis (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82; P < .001)
- Intracranial bleed (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85; P < .001)
- Deep vein thrombosis (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001)
- In-hospital mortality (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.50-0.58; P < .001)
- Sepsis (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.75; P < .001)
- Septic shock (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.60; P < .001)
There was no association reported for gastrointestinal bleeding, a possible side effect of aspirin use, or tumor lysis syndrome. Aspirin users also had a shorter typical stay (−2.8 days) and lower typical hospital charges ($40,719).
“We also found that aspirin users had a slightly reduced risk of minor bleeding and infection compared to non–aspirin users,” Dr. Jayakumar said.
In an interview, Dr. Jayakumar noted that the study is retrospective and declined to speculate on why aspirin may have benefits or why it may have the seemingly contradictory effect of reducing both blood clots and bleeding.
Aspirin is one of the least expensive drugs in existence.
In an interview, Richard M. Stone, MD, oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the findings are “totally counterintuitive.”
“It doesn’t mean they should be rejected, but they should be highly scrutinized,” he said.
Dr. Stone added that bleeding is a major risk in leukemia due to low platelet counts, although platelet transplants can be helpful, and patients rarely die of bleeding. Thrombosis is also a problem in leukemia, he said, and it’s being increasingly recognized as a risk in acute myeloid leukemia.
No funding was reported. Dr. Jayakumar and Dr. Stone had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A new analysis hints that there may be a benefit from aspirin for hospitalized patients with leukemia. In a preliminary study, researchers found that aspirin users had much lower odds of intracranial bleeding, deep vein thrombosis, in-hospital mortality, and septic stroke.
Aspirin users also spent less time in the hospital and had less costly care.
No one is suggesting that clinicians give aspirin to hospitalized patients with leukemia when the drug is not otherwise indicated. However, the findings, released at the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO 2024) meeting in Houston, do indicate that more research is warranted, study lead author Jayalekshmi Jayakumar, MD, of the Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York City, said in a presentation.
“We hope our study can act as background for further prospective and experimental studies to explore this association,” she said. “If we can establish causation, then aspirin has a potential to be a thromboprophylactic agent to enhance outcomes and reduce resource utilization among leukemia hospitalizations.”
Dr. Jayakumar noted that previous research has suggested aspirin may help prevent deep vein thrombosis in patients with breast and pancreatic cancer. And in blood cancer, animal research has suggested that aspirin may “promote apoptosis in leukemia cells and decrease the spread of leukemia cells through platelet inhibition,” she said.
However, “we do not have any prospective or retrospective studies to establish causation or to see if this actually has some value within the clinical practice,” she noted.
Dr. Jayakumar stated that new study aims to detect whether aspirin may be beneficial in leukemia. She and her colleagues retrospectively tracked 1,663,149 US hospitalizations of patients with leukemia from 2016 to 2020 via the National Inpatient Sample. Of those patients, 11.2% used aspirin, although the data didn’t say whether they started it during hospitalization, and dosages were not reported. Aspirin users were older (mean age, 74.53 years vs 64.83 years in nonusers).
After adjustment for confounders, aspirin users had lower odds of several conditions than nonusers:
- Epistaxis (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.72; P < .001)
- Hemoptysis (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82; P < .001)
- Intracranial bleed (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85; P < .001)
- Deep vein thrombosis (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001)
- In-hospital mortality (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.50-0.58; P < .001)
- Sepsis (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.75; P < .001)
- Septic shock (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.60; P < .001)
There was no association reported for gastrointestinal bleeding, a possible side effect of aspirin use, or tumor lysis syndrome. Aspirin users also had a shorter typical stay (−2.8 days) and lower typical hospital charges ($40,719).
“We also found that aspirin users had a slightly reduced risk of minor bleeding and infection compared to non–aspirin users,” Dr. Jayakumar said.
In an interview, Dr. Jayakumar noted that the study is retrospective and declined to speculate on why aspirin may have benefits or why it may have the seemingly contradictory effect of reducing both blood clots and bleeding.
Aspirin is one of the least expensive drugs in existence.
In an interview, Richard M. Stone, MD, oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the findings are “totally counterintuitive.”
“It doesn’t mean they should be rejected, but they should be highly scrutinized,” he said.
Dr. Stone added that bleeding is a major risk in leukemia due to low platelet counts, although platelet transplants can be helpful, and patients rarely die of bleeding. Thrombosis is also a problem in leukemia, he said, and it’s being increasingly recognized as a risk in acute myeloid leukemia.
No funding was reported. Dr. Jayakumar and Dr. Stone had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A new analysis hints that there may be a benefit from aspirin for hospitalized patients with leukemia. In a preliminary study, researchers found that aspirin users had much lower odds of intracranial bleeding, deep vein thrombosis, in-hospital mortality, and septic stroke.
Aspirin users also spent less time in the hospital and had less costly care.
No one is suggesting that clinicians give aspirin to hospitalized patients with leukemia when the drug is not otherwise indicated. However, the findings, released at the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO 2024) meeting in Houston, do indicate that more research is warranted, study lead author Jayalekshmi Jayakumar, MD, of the Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York City, said in a presentation.
“We hope our study can act as background for further prospective and experimental studies to explore this association,” she said. “If we can establish causation, then aspirin has a potential to be a thromboprophylactic agent to enhance outcomes and reduce resource utilization among leukemia hospitalizations.”
Dr. Jayakumar noted that previous research has suggested aspirin may help prevent deep vein thrombosis in patients with breast and pancreatic cancer. And in blood cancer, animal research has suggested that aspirin may “promote apoptosis in leukemia cells and decrease the spread of leukemia cells through platelet inhibition,” she said.
However, “we do not have any prospective or retrospective studies to establish causation or to see if this actually has some value within the clinical practice,” she noted.
Dr. Jayakumar stated that new study aims to detect whether aspirin may be beneficial in leukemia. She and her colleagues retrospectively tracked 1,663,149 US hospitalizations of patients with leukemia from 2016 to 2020 via the National Inpatient Sample. Of those patients, 11.2% used aspirin, although the data didn’t say whether they started it during hospitalization, and dosages were not reported. Aspirin users were older (mean age, 74.53 years vs 64.83 years in nonusers).
After adjustment for confounders, aspirin users had lower odds of several conditions than nonusers:
- Epistaxis (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.72; P < .001)
- Hemoptysis (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82; P < .001)
- Intracranial bleed (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85; P < .001)
- Deep vein thrombosis (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001)
- In-hospital mortality (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.50-0.58; P < .001)
- Sepsis (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.75; P < .001)
- Septic shock (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.60; P < .001)
There was no association reported for gastrointestinal bleeding, a possible side effect of aspirin use, or tumor lysis syndrome. Aspirin users also had a shorter typical stay (−2.8 days) and lower typical hospital charges ($40,719).
“We also found that aspirin users had a slightly reduced risk of minor bleeding and infection compared to non–aspirin users,” Dr. Jayakumar said.
In an interview, Dr. Jayakumar noted that the study is retrospective and declined to speculate on why aspirin may have benefits or why it may have the seemingly contradictory effect of reducing both blood clots and bleeding.
Aspirin is one of the least expensive drugs in existence.
In an interview, Richard M. Stone, MD, oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the findings are “totally counterintuitive.”
“It doesn’t mean they should be rejected, but they should be highly scrutinized,” he said.
Dr. Stone added that bleeding is a major risk in leukemia due to low platelet counts, although platelet transplants can be helpful, and patients rarely die of bleeding. Thrombosis is also a problem in leukemia, he said, and it’s being increasingly recognized as a risk in acute myeloid leukemia.
No funding was reported. Dr. Jayakumar and Dr. Stone had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SOHO 2024
Should All Patients With Early Breast Cancer Receive Adjuvant Radiotherapy?
based on a 30-year follow-up of the Scottish Breast Conservation Trial.
These findings suggest that patients with biology predicting late relapse may receive little benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, lead author Linda J. Williams, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and colleagues, reported.
“During the past 30 years, several randomized controlled trials have investigated the role of postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Oncology. “These trials showed that radiotherapy reduces the risk of local recurrence but were underpowered individually to detect a difference in overall survival.”
How Did the Present Study Increase Our Understanding of the Benefits of Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Early Breast Cancer?
The present analysis included data from a trial that began in 1985, when 589 patients with early breast cancer (tumors ≤ 4 cm [T1 or T2 and N0 or N1]) were randomized to receive either high-dose or no radiotherapy, with final cohorts including 291 patients and 294 patients, respectively. The radiotherapy was given 50 Gy in 20-25 fractions, either locally or locoregionally.
Estrogen receptor (ER)–positive patients (≥ 20 fmol/mg protein) received 5 years of daily oral tamoxifen. ER-poor patients (< 20 fmol/mg protein) received a chemotherapy combination of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil on a 21-day cycle for eight cycles.
Considering all data across a median follow-up of 17.5 years, adjuvant radiotherapy appeared to offer benefit, as it was associated with significantly lower ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (16% vs 36%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; P < .0001).
But that tells only part of the story.
The positive impact of radiotherapy persisted for 1 decade (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), but risk beyond this point was no different between groups (HR, 0.98; P = .95).
“[The] benefit of radiotherapy was time dependent,” the investigators noted.
What’s more, median overall survival was no different between those who received radiotherapy and those who did not (18.7 vs 19.2 years; HR, 1.08; log-rank P = .43), and “reassuringly,” omitting radiotherapy did not increase the rate of distant metastasis.
How Might These Findings Influence Treatment Planning for Patients With Early Breast Cancer?
“The results can help clinicians to advise patients better about their choice to have radiotherapy or not if they better understand what benefits it does and does not bring,” the investigators wrote. “These results might provide clues perhaps to the biology of radiotherapy benefit, given that it does not prevent late recurrences, suggesting that patients whose biology predicts a late relapse only might not gain a benefit from radiotherapy.”
Gary M. Freedman, MD, chief of Women’s Health Service, Radiation Oncology, at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective.
“The study lumps together a local recurrence of breast cancer — that is relapse of the cancer years after treatment with lumpectomy and radiation — with the development of an entirely new breast cancer in the same breast,” Dr. Freedman said in a written comment. “When something comes back between years 0-5 and 0-8, we usually think of it as a true local recurrence arbitrarily, but beyond that they are new cancers.”
He went on to emphasize the clinical importance of reducing local recurrence within the first decade, noting that “this leads to much less morbidity and better quality of life for the patients.”
Dr. Freedman also shared his perspective on the survival data.
“Radiation did reduce breast cancer mortality very significantly — death from breast cancers went down from 46% to 37%,” he wrote (P = .054). “This is on the same level as chemo or hormone therapy. The study was not powered to detect significant differences in survival by radiation, but that has been shown with other meta-analyses.”
Are Findings From a Trial Started 30 Years Ago Still Relevant Today?
“Clearly the treatment of early breast cancer has advanced since the 1980s when the Scottish Conservation trial was launched,” study coauthor Ian Kunkler, MB, FRCR, of the University of Edinburgh, said in a written comment. “There is more breast screening, attention to clearing surgical margins of residual disease, more effective and longer periods of adjuvant hormonal therapy, reduced radiotherapy toxicity from more precise delivery. However, most anticancer treatments lose their effectiveness over time.”
He suggested that more trials are needed to confirm the present findings and reiterated that the lack of long-term recurrence benefit is most relevant for patients with disease features that predict late relapse, who “seem to gain little from adjuvant radiotherapy given as part of primary treatment.”
Dr. Kunkler noted that the observed benefit in the first decade supports the continued use of radiotherapy alongside anticancer drug treatment.
When asked the same question, Freedman emphasized the differences in treatment today vs the 1980s.
“The results of modern multidisciplinary cancer care are much, much better than these 30-year results,” Dr. Freedman said. “The risk for local recurrence in the breast after radiation is now about 2%-3% at 10 years in most studies.”
He also noted that modern radiotherapy techniques have “significantly lowered dose and risks to heart and lung,” compared with techniques used 30 years ago.
“A take-home point for the study is after breast conservation, whether or not you have radiation, you have to continue long-term screening mammograms for new breast cancers that may occur even decades later,” Dr. Freedman concluded.
How Might These Findings Impact Future Research Design and Funding?
“The findings should encourage trial funders to consider funding long-term follow-up beyond 10 years to assess benefits and risks of anticancer therapies,” Dr. Kunkler said. “The importance of long-term follow-up cannot be understated.”
This study was funded by Breast Cancer Institute (part of Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), PFS Genomics (now part of Exact Sciences), the University of Edinburgh, and NHS Lothian. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
based on a 30-year follow-up of the Scottish Breast Conservation Trial.
These findings suggest that patients with biology predicting late relapse may receive little benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, lead author Linda J. Williams, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and colleagues, reported.
“During the past 30 years, several randomized controlled trials have investigated the role of postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Oncology. “These trials showed that radiotherapy reduces the risk of local recurrence but were underpowered individually to detect a difference in overall survival.”
How Did the Present Study Increase Our Understanding of the Benefits of Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Early Breast Cancer?
The present analysis included data from a trial that began in 1985, when 589 patients with early breast cancer (tumors ≤ 4 cm [T1 or T2 and N0 or N1]) were randomized to receive either high-dose or no radiotherapy, with final cohorts including 291 patients and 294 patients, respectively. The radiotherapy was given 50 Gy in 20-25 fractions, either locally or locoregionally.
Estrogen receptor (ER)–positive patients (≥ 20 fmol/mg protein) received 5 years of daily oral tamoxifen. ER-poor patients (< 20 fmol/mg protein) received a chemotherapy combination of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil on a 21-day cycle for eight cycles.
Considering all data across a median follow-up of 17.5 years, adjuvant radiotherapy appeared to offer benefit, as it was associated with significantly lower ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (16% vs 36%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; P < .0001).
But that tells only part of the story.
The positive impact of radiotherapy persisted for 1 decade (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), but risk beyond this point was no different between groups (HR, 0.98; P = .95).
“[The] benefit of radiotherapy was time dependent,” the investigators noted.
What’s more, median overall survival was no different between those who received radiotherapy and those who did not (18.7 vs 19.2 years; HR, 1.08; log-rank P = .43), and “reassuringly,” omitting radiotherapy did not increase the rate of distant metastasis.
How Might These Findings Influence Treatment Planning for Patients With Early Breast Cancer?
“The results can help clinicians to advise patients better about their choice to have radiotherapy or not if they better understand what benefits it does and does not bring,” the investigators wrote. “These results might provide clues perhaps to the biology of radiotherapy benefit, given that it does not prevent late recurrences, suggesting that patients whose biology predicts a late relapse only might not gain a benefit from radiotherapy.”
Gary M. Freedman, MD, chief of Women’s Health Service, Radiation Oncology, at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective.
“The study lumps together a local recurrence of breast cancer — that is relapse of the cancer years after treatment with lumpectomy and radiation — with the development of an entirely new breast cancer in the same breast,” Dr. Freedman said in a written comment. “When something comes back between years 0-5 and 0-8, we usually think of it as a true local recurrence arbitrarily, but beyond that they are new cancers.”
He went on to emphasize the clinical importance of reducing local recurrence within the first decade, noting that “this leads to much less morbidity and better quality of life for the patients.”
Dr. Freedman also shared his perspective on the survival data.
“Radiation did reduce breast cancer mortality very significantly — death from breast cancers went down from 46% to 37%,” he wrote (P = .054). “This is on the same level as chemo or hormone therapy. The study was not powered to detect significant differences in survival by radiation, but that has been shown with other meta-analyses.”
Are Findings From a Trial Started 30 Years Ago Still Relevant Today?
“Clearly the treatment of early breast cancer has advanced since the 1980s when the Scottish Conservation trial was launched,” study coauthor Ian Kunkler, MB, FRCR, of the University of Edinburgh, said in a written comment. “There is more breast screening, attention to clearing surgical margins of residual disease, more effective and longer periods of adjuvant hormonal therapy, reduced radiotherapy toxicity from more precise delivery. However, most anticancer treatments lose their effectiveness over time.”
He suggested that more trials are needed to confirm the present findings and reiterated that the lack of long-term recurrence benefit is most relevant for patients with disease features that predict late relapse, who “seem to gain little from adjuvant radiotherapy given as part of primary treatment.”
Dr. Kunkler noted that the observed benefit in the first decade supports the continued use of radiotherapy alongside anticancer drug treatment.
When asked the same question, Freedman emphasized the differences in treatment today vs the 1980s.
“The results of modern multidisciplinary cancer care are much, much better than these 30-year results,” Dr. Freedman said. “The risk for local recurrence in the breast after radiation is now about 2%-3% at 10 years in most studies.”
He also noted that modern radiotherapy techniques have “significantly lowered dose and risks to heart and lung,” compared with techniques used 30 years ago.
“A take-home point for the study is after breast conservation, whether or not you have radiation, you have to continue long-term screening mammograms for new breast cancers that may occur even decades later,” Dr. Freedman concluded.
How Might These Findings Impact Future Research Design and Funding?
“The findings should encourage trial funders to consider funding long-term follow-up beyond 10 years to assess benefits and risks of anticancer therapies,” Dr. Kunkler said. “The importance of long-term follow-up cannot be understated.”
This study was funded by Breast Cancer Institute (part of Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), PFS Genomics (now part of Exact Sciences), the University of Edinburgh, and NHS Lothian. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
based on a 30-year follow-up of the Scottish Breast Conservation Trial.
These findings suggest that patients with biology predicting late relapse may receive little benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, lead author Linda J. Williams, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and colleagues, reported.
“During the past 30 years, several randomized controlled trials have investigated the role of postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Oncology. “These trials showed that radiotherapy reduces the risk of local recurrence but were underpowered individually to detect a difference in overall survival.”
How Did the Present Study Increase Our Understanding of the Benefits of Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Early Breast Cancer?
The present analysis included data from a trial that began in 1985, when 589 patients with early breast cancer (tumors ≤ 4 cm [T1 or T2 and N0 or N1]) were randomized to receive either high-dose or no radiotherapy, with final cohorts including 291 patients and 294 patients, respectively. The radiotherapy was given 50 Gy in 20-25 fractions, either locally or locoregionally.
Estrogen receptor (ER)–positive patients (≥ 20 fmol/mg protein) received 5 years of daily oral tamoxifen. ER-poor patients (< 20 fmol/mg protein) received a chemotherapy combination of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil on a 21-day cycle for eight cycles.
Considering all data across a median follow-up of 17.5 years, adjuvant radiotherapy appeared to offer benefit, as it was associated with significantly lower ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (16% vs 36%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; P < .0001).
But that tells only part of the story.
The positive impact of radiotherapy persisted for 1 decade (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), but risk beyond this point was no different between groups (HR, 0.98; P = .95).
“[The] benefit of radiotherapy was time dependent,” the investigators noted.
What’s more, median overall survival was no different between those who received radiotherapy and those who did not (18.7 vs 19.2 years; HR, 1.08; log-rank P = .43), and “reassuringly,” omitting radiotherapy did not increase the rate of distant metastasis.
How Might These Findings Influence Treatment Planning for Patients With Early Breast Cancer?
“The results can help clinicians to advise patients better about their choice to have radiotherapy or not if they better understand what benefits it does and does not bring,” the investigators wrote. “These results might provide clues perhaps to the biology of radiotherapy benefit, given that it does not prevent late recurrences, suggesting that patients whose biology predicts a late relapse only might not gain a benefit from radiotherapy.”
Gary M. Freedman, MD, chief of Women’s Health Service, Radiation Oncology, at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective.
“The study lumps together a local recurrence of breast cancer — that is relapse of the cancer years after treatment with lumpectomy and radiation — with the development of an entirely new breast cancer in the same breast,” Dr. Freedman said in a written comment. “When something comes back between years 0-5 and 0-8, we usually think of it as a true local recurrence arbitrarily, but beyond that they are new cancers.”
He went on to emphasize the clinical importance of reducing local recurrence within the first decade, noting that “this leads to much less morbidity and better quality of life for the patients.”
Dr. Freedman also shared his perspective on the survival data.
“Radiation did reduce breast cancer mortality very significantly — death from breast cancers went down from 46% to 37%,” he wrote (P = .054). “This is on the same level as chemo or hormone therapy. The study was not powered to detect significant differences in survival by radiation, but that has been shown with other meta-analyses.”
Are Findings From a Trial Started 30 Years Ago Still Relevant Today?
“Clearly the treatment of early breast cancer has advanced since the 1980s when the Scottish Conservation trial was launched,” study coauthor Ian Kunkler, MB, FRCR, of the University of Edinburgh, said in a written comment. “There is more breast screening, attention to clearing surgical margins of residual disease, more effective and longer periods of adjuvant hormonal therapy, reduced radiotherapy toxicity from more precise delivery. However, most anticancer treatments lose their effectiveness over time.”
He suggested that more trials are needed to confirm the present findings and reiterated that the lack of long-term recurrence benefit is most relevant for patients with disease features that predict late relapse, who “seem to gain little from adjuvant radiotherapy given as part of primary treatment.”
Dr. Kunkler noted that the observed benefit in the first decade supports the continued use of radiotherapy alongside anticancer drug treatment.
When asked the same question, Freedman emphasized the differences in treatment today vs the 1980s.
“The results of modern multidisciplinary cancer care are much, much better than these 30-year results,” Dr. Freedman said. “The risk for local recurrence in the breast after radiation is now about 2%-3% at 10 years in most studies.”
He also noted that modern radiotherapy techniques have “significantly lowered dose and risks to heart and lung,” compared with techniques used 30 years ago.
“A take-home point for the study is after breast conservation, whether or not you have radiation, you have to continue long-term screening mammograms for new breast cancers that may occur even decades later,” Dr. Freedman concluded.
How Might These Findings Impact Future Research Design and Funding?
“The findings should encourage trial funders to consider funding long-term follow-up beyond 10 years to assess benefits and risks of anticancer therapies,” Dr. Kunkler said. “The importance of long-term follow-up cannot be understated.”
This study was funded by Breast Cancer Institute (part of Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), PFS Genomics (now part of Exact Sciences), the University of Edinburgh, and NHS Lothian. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
High Breast Cancer Risk With Menopausal Hormone Therapy & Strong Family History
TOPLINE:
These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.
METHODOLOGY:
This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.
Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:
- “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
- “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
- “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
- “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
- The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”
SOURCE:
The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.
METHODOLOGY:
This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.
Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:
- “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
- “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
- “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
- “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
- The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”
SOURCE:
The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.
METHODOLOGY:
This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.
Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:
- “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
- “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
- “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
- “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
- The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”
SOURCE:
The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Breast Cancer Hormone Therapy May Protect Against Dementia
TOPLINE:
with the greatest benefit seen in younger Black women.
METHODOLOGY:
- Hormone-modulating therapy is widely used to treat hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, but the cognitive effects of the treatment, including a potential link to dementia, remain unclear.
- To investigate, researchers used the SEER-Medicare linked database to identify women aged 65 years or older with breast cancer who did and did not receive hormone-modulating therapy within 3 years following their diagnosis.
- The researchers excluded women with preexisting Alzheimer’s disease/dementia diagnoses or those who had received hormone-modulating therapy before their breast cancer diagnosis.
- Analyses were adjusted for demographic, sociocultural, and clinical variables, and subgroup analyses evaluated the impact of age, race, and type of hormone-modulating therapy on Alzheimer’s disease/dementia risk.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among the 18,808 women included in the analysis, 66% received hormone-modulating therapy and 34% did not. During the mean follow-up of 12 years, 24% of hormone-modulating therapy users and 28% of nonusers developed Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
- Overall, hormone-modulating therapy use (vs nonuse) was associated with a significant 7% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; P = .005), with notable age and racial differences.
- Hormone-modulating therapy use was associated with a 24% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia in Black women aged 65-74 years (HR, 0.76), but that protective effect decreased to 19% in Black women aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.81). White women aged 65-74 years who received hormone-modulating therapy (vs those who did not) had an 11% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.89), but the association disappeared among those aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.02). Other races demonstrated no significant association between hormone-modulating therapy use and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
- Overall, the use of an aromatase inhibitor or a selective estrogen receptor modulator was associated with a significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.93 and HR, 0.89, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
Overall, the retrospective study found that “hormone therapy was associated with protection against [Alzheimer’s/dementia] in women aged 65 years or older with newly diagnosed breast cancer,” with the decrease in risk relatively greater for Black women and women younger than 75 years, the authors concluded.
“The results highlight the critical need for personalized breast cancer treatment plans that are tailored to the individual characteristics of each patient, particularly given the significantly higher likelihood (two to three times more) of Black women developing [Alzheimer’s/dementia], compared with their White counterparts,” the researchers added.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Chao Cai, PhD, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Outcomes Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, was published online on July 16 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study included only women aged 65 years or older, limiting generalizability to younger women. The dataset lacked genetic information and laboratory data related to dementia. The duration of hormone-modulating therapy use beyond 3 years and specific formulations were not assessed. Potential confounders such as variations in chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery were not fully addressed.
DISCLOSURES:
Support for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health; Carolina Center on Alzheimer’s Disease and Minority Research pilot project; and the Dean’s Faculty Advancement Fund, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
with the greatest benefit seen in younger Black women.
METHODOLOGY:
- Hormone-modulating therapy is widely used to treat hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, but the cognitive effects of the treatment, including a potential link to dementia, remain unclear.
- To investigate, researchers used the SEER-Medicare linked database to identify women aged 65 years or older with breast cancer who did and did not receive hormone-modulating therapy within 3 years following their diagnosis.
- The researchers excluded women with preexisting Alzheimer’s disease/dementia diagnoses or those who had received hormone-modulating therapy before their breast cancer diagnosis.
- Analyses were adjusted for demographic, sociocultural, and clinical variables, and subgroup analyses evaluated the impact of age, race, and type of hormone-modulating therapy on Alzheimer’s disease/dementia risk.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among the 18,808 women included in the analysis, 66% received hormone-modulating therapy and 34% did not. During the mean follow-up of 12 years, 24% of hormone-modulating therapy users and 28% of nonusers developed Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
- Overall, hormone-modulating therapy use (vs nonuse) was associated with a significant 7% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; P = .005), with notable age and racial differences.
- Hormone-modulating therapy use was associated with a 24% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia in Black women aged 65-74 years (HR, 0.76), but that protective effect decreased to 19% in Black women aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.81). White women aged 65-74 years who received hormone-modulating therapy (vs those who did not) had an 11% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.89), but the association disappeared among those aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.02). Other races demonstrated no significant association between hormone-modulating therapy use and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
- Overall, the use of an aromatase inhibitor or a selective estrogen receptor modulator was associated with a significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.93 and HR, 0.89, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
Overall, the retrospective study found that “hormone therapy was associated with protection against [Alzheimer’s/dementia] in women aged 65 years or older with newly diagnosed breast cancer,” with the decrease in risk relatively greater for Black women and women younger than 75 years, the authors concluded.
“The results highlight the critical need for personalized breast cancer treatment plans that are tailored to the individual characteristics of each patient, particularly given the significantly higher likelihood (two to three times more) of Black women developing [Alzheimer’s/dementia], compared with their White counterparts,” the researchers added.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Chao Cai, PhD, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Outcomes Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, was published online on July 16 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study included only women aged 65 years or older, limiting generalizability to younger women. The dataset lacked genetic information and laboratory data related to dementia. The duration of hormone-modulating therapy use beyond 3 years and specific formulations were not assessed. Potential confounders such as variations in chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery were not fully addressed.
DISCLOSURES:
Support for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health; Carolina Center on Alzheimer’s Disease and Minority Research pilot project; and the Dean’s Faculty Advancement Fund, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
with the greatest benefit seen in younger Black women.
METHODOLOGY:
- Hormone-modulating therapy is widely used to treat hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, but the cognitive effects of the treatment, including a potential link to dementia, remain unclear.
- To investigate, researchers used the SEER-Medicare linked database to identify women aged 65 years or older with breast cancer who did and did not receive hormone-modulating therapy within 3 years following their diagnosis.
- The researchers excluded women with preexisting Alzheimer’s disease/dementia diagnoses or those who had received hormone-modulating therapy before their breast cancer diagnosis.
- Analyses were adjusted for demographic, sociocultural, and clinical variables, and subgroup analyses evaluated the impact of age, race, and type of hormone-modulating therapy on Alzheimer’s disease/dementia risk.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among the 18,808 women included in the analysis, 66% received hormone-modulating therapy and 34% did not. During the mean follow-up of 12 years, 24% of hormone-modulating therapy users and 28% of nonusers developed Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
- Overall, hormone-modulating therapy use (vs nonuse) was associated with a significant 7% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; P = .005), with notable age and racial differences.
- Hormone-modulating therapy use was associated with a 24% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia in Black women aged 65-74 years (HR, 0.76), but that protective effect decreased to 19% in Black women aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.81). White women aged 65-74 years who received hormone-modulating therapy (vs those who did not) had an 11% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.89), but the association disappeared among those aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.02). Other races demonstrated no significant association between hormone-modulating therapy use and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
- Overall, the use of an aromatase inhibitor or a selective estrogen receptor modulator was associated with a significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.93 and HR, 0.89, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
Overall, the retrospective study found that “hormone therapy was associated with protection against [Alzheimer’s/dementia] in women aged 65 years or older with newly diagnosed breast cancer,” with the decrease in risk relatively greater for Black women and women younger than 75 years, the authors concluded.
“The results highlight the critical need for personalized breast cancer treatment plans that are tailored to the individual characteristics of each patient, particularly given the significantly higher likelihood (two to three times more) of Black women developing [Alzheimer’s/dementia], compared with their White counterparts,” the researchers added.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Chao Cai, PhD, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Outcomes Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, was published online on July 16 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study included only women aged 65 years or older, limiting generalizability to younger women. The dataset lacked genetic information and laboratory data related to dementia. The duration of hormone-modulating therapy use beyond 3 years and specific formulations were not assessed. Potential confounders such as variations in chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery were not fully addressed.
DISCLOSURES:
Support for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health; Carolina Center on Alzheimer’s Disease and Minority Research pilot project; and the Dean’s Faculty Advancement Fund, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
To Choose the Best First-line Drug for CML, Consider Efficacy and Cost
When it comes to selecting a cost-effective, first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), consider the treatment goal.
For survival, generic imatinib remains the gold standard, Elias Jabbour, MD, said during a session at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.
For treatment-free remission, generic dasatinib or another generic second-generation TKI is needed, but not yet available in the United States, so generic imatinib is the best current choice, said Dr. Jabbour, a professor of medicine in the Department of Leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Prior to the availability of generic imatinib, that wasn’t the case, he noted, explaining that second-generation TKIs met the cost-efficacy criteria, but now — at about $35 per month or about $400 per year — imatinib is far less expensive than the approximately $250,000 per year that brand-name second- and third-generation TKIs can currently cost.
To have treatment value, any new TKI should cost $40,000-$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is defined as the quality and duration of life after a novel TKI vs with the existing standard of care, Dr. Jabbour said.
And to qualify as a frontline therapy for CML, any new TKI should show efficacy superior to second-generation TKIs, in addition to meeting the cost-effectiveness criteria.
“It is hard to show survival benefit anymore, but we need to improve on the rate of durable deep molecular remission,” he said.
An equivalent or better long-term safety profile over at least 7-8 years is also needed.
Based on the current literature, none of the TKIs currently being evaluated has met that standard, although some trials are ongoing.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Jabbour and colleagues outlined treatment recommendations based on the currently available data. They suggested using lower-than-approved doses of TKIs in both frontline and later therapies to reduce toxicity, improve treatment compliance, and reduce costs.
They also suggested that the absence of an early molecular response might not warrant changing the TKI, especially when a second-generation TKI was used first line.
When treatment-free remission is not a therapeutic goal or is unlikely, changing the TKI to improve the depth of molecular response, which has been shown to improve the likelihood of treatment-free remission, could do more harm than good, they argued.
Instead, consider reducing the dose to manage reversible side effects, they suggested, noting that generic imatinib, and eventually generic dasatinib and possibly other generic second-generation TKIs, will likely offer 90% of patients with CML an effective, safe, and affordable treatment that normalizes life expectancy and leads to treatment-free remission in 30%-50% of patients over time.
Dr. Jabbour disclosed ties with AbbVie, Almoosa Specialist Hospital, Amgen, Ascentage Pharma, Biologix FZ, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Kite, Takeda, and Terns.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When it comes to selecting a cost-effective, first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), consider the treatment goal.
For survival, generic imatinib remains the gold standard, Elias Jabbour, MD, said during a session at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.
For treatment-free remission, generic dasatinib or another generic second-generation TKI is needed, but not yet available in the United States, so generic imatinib is the best current choice, said Dr. Jabbour, a professor of medicine in the Department of Leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Prior to the availability of generic imatinib, that wasn’t the case, he noted, explaining that second-generation TKIs met the cost-efficacy criteria, but now — at about $35 per month or about $400 per year — imatinib is far less expensive than the approximately $250,000 per year that brand-name second- and third-generation TKIs can currently cost.
To have treatment value, any new TKI should cost $40,000-$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is defined as the quality and duration of life after a novel TKI vs with the existing standard of care, Dr. Jabbour said.
And to qualify as a frontline therapy for CML, any new TKI should show efficacy superior to second-generation TKIs, in addition to meeting the cost-effectiveness criteria.
“It is hard to show survival benefit anymore, but we need to improve on the rate of durable deep molecular remission,” he said.
An equivalent or better long-term safety profile over at least 7-8 years is also needed.
Based on the current literature, none of the TKIs currently being evaluated has met that standard, although some trials are ongoing.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Jabbour and colleagues outlined treatment recommendations based on the currently available data. They suggested using lower-than-approved doses of TKIs in both frontline and later therapies to reduce toxicity, improve treatment compliance, and reduce costs.
They also suggested that the absence of an early molecular response might not warrant changing the TKI, especially when a second-generation TKI was used first line.
When treatment-free remission is not a therapeutic goal or is unlikely, changing the TKI to improve the depth of molecular response, which has been shown to improve the likelihood of treatment-free remission, could do more harm than good, they argued.
Instead, consider reducing the dose to manage reversible side effects, they suggested, noting that generic imatinib, and eventually generic dasatinib and possibly other generic second-generation TKIs, will likely offer 90% of patients with CML an effective, safe, and affordable treatment that normalizes life expectancy and leads to treatment-free remission in 30%-50% of patients over time.
Dr. Jabbour disclosed ties with AbbVie, Almoosa Specialist Hospital, Amgen, Ascentage Pharma, Biologix FZ, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Kite, Takeda, and Terns.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When it comes to selecting a cost-effective, first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), consider the treatment goal.
For survival, generic imatinib remains the gold standard, Elias Jabbour, MD, said during a session at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.
For treatment-free remission, generic dasatinib or another generic second-generation TKI is needed, but not yet available in the United States, so generic imatinib is the best current choice, said Dr. Jabbour, a professor of medicine in the Department of Leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Prior to the availability of generic imatinib, that wasn’t the case, he noted, explaining that second-generation TKIs met the cost-efficacy criteria, but now — at about $35 per month or about $400 per year — imatinib is far less expensive than the approximately $250,000 per year that brand-name second- and third-generation TKIs can currently cost.
To have treatment value, any new TKI should cost $40,000-$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is defined as the quality and duration of life after a novel TKI vs with the existing standard of care, Dr. Jabbour said.
And to qualify as a frontline therapy for CML, any new TKI should show efficacy superior to second-generation TKIs, in addition to meeting the cost-effectiveness criteria.
“It is hard to show survival benefit anymore, but we need to improve on the rate of durable deep molecular remission,” he said.
An equivalent or better long-term safety profile over at least 7-8 years is also needed.
Based on the current literature, none of the TKIs currently being evaluated has met that standard, although some trials are ongoing.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Jabbour and colleagues outlined treatment recommendations based on the currently available data. They suggested using lower-than-approved doses of TKIs in both frontline and later therapies to reduce toxicity, improve treatment compliance, and reduce costs.
They also suggested that the absence of an early molecular response might not warrant changing the TKI, especially when a second-generation TKI was used first line.
When treatment-free remission is not a therapeutic goal or is unlikely, changing the TKI to improve the depth of molecular response, which has been shown to improve the likelihood of treatment-free remission, could do more harm than good, they argued.
Instead, consider reducing the dose to manage reversible side effects, they suggested, noting that generic imatinib, and eventually generic dasatinib and possibly other generic second-generation TKIs, will likely offer 90% of patients with CML an effective, safe, and affordable treatment that normalizes life expectancy and leads to treatment-free remission in 30%-50% of patients over time.
Dr. Jabbour disclosed ties with AbbVie, Almoosa Specialist Hospital, Amgen, Ascentage Pharma, Biologix FZ, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Kite, Takeda, and Terns.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SOHO 2024
Do Clonal Hematopoiesis and Mosaic Chromosomal Alterations Increase Solid Tumor Risk?
Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.
These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors
“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.
In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.
But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.
“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”
In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?
To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.
In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.
More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.
The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.
“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.
“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.
“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.
Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?
CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.
In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.
“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.
As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.
Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).
The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.
The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.
She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?
Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.
“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.
“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.
Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?
“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”
Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.
“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
Future research and therapeutic development
Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.
“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.
Available data support both possibilities.
On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.
When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”
The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.
“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.
Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.
“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.
The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.
These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors
“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.
In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.
But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.
“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”
In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?
To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.
In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.
More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.
The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.
“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.
“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.
“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.
Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?
CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.
In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.
“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.
As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.
Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).
The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.
The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.
She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?
Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.
“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.
“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.
Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?
“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”
Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.
“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
Future research and therapeutic development
Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.
“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.
Available data support both possibilities.
On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.
When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”
The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.
“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.
Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.
“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.
The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.
These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors
“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.
In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.
But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.
“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”
In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?
To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.
In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.
More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.
The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.
“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.
“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.
“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.
Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?
CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.
In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.
“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.
As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.
Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).
The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.
The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.
She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?
Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.
“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.
“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.
Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?
“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”
Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.
“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
Future research and therapeutic development
Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.
“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.
Available data support both possibilities.
On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.
When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”
The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.
“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.
Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.
“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.
The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANCER
Depiction of Cancer in Movies: Not an Accurate Portrayal
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’d like to talk about a very different topic from what I normally discuss, which is probably relatively rarely addressed in clinical conversations among clinicians. There was a very provocative commentary that appeared in JCO Oncology Practice, titled “Hollywood’s Take on Oncology: Portrayal of Cancer in Movies, 2010-2020.”
All of us, as we grow up — as kids, adolescents, young adults, adults, and older individuals — watch television and movies. The older of us know that the doctor in everybody’s home that we all wanted was Marcus Welby. Of course, there was Dr. Kildare, ER, Grey’s Anatomy, and St. Elsewhere. There was Love Story and Brian’s Song. We all know about these.
This particular review was fascinating. The authors looked at 100 English-language movies that had cancer included in the storyline over the past decade. They asked some relatively simple questions: How did they discuss it? What were the tumor types they discussed? What were the outcomes?
The question is, what is the public seeing? If you watch these movies and you don’t have family experience or personal experience with cancer, what do you think about cancer? Maybe this is what you know about it. Despite what the National Cancer Institute or the American Society of Clinical Oncology tells you, this may be what you know.
What they showed was really quite interesting.
There is another very interesting phenomenon. What do you think was the most common cancer type when they did define the cancer? It was brain tumors, even though we know that brain tumors are certainly not even within the top 10. They’re obviously very serious cancers, but if you’re talking about common cancers, brain cancer doesn’t rank in the top 10, and it was the most common cancer on these shows.
The authors of this paper made the point of whether this would be an opportunity for filmmakers. Again, with the storyline, they’re trying to sell a product here, but wouldn’t this be the opportunity to provide some information about the reality of cancer? They could emphasize the fact that smokers get lung cancer. In my opinion, they could discuss cervical cancer and comment that if HPV vaccination had been done, maybe this would not have happened.
They noted that the majority of cancers in these movies were incurable, and they commented that that’s not the reality today. Today, obviously, many of our cancers that weren’t curable have become quite curable for a percentage of patients, in addition to which, obviously, with early detection, we have a very high cure rate. How about trying to get that message out, too, that we’ve actually had increasing success?
They commented that there was very rarely, if ever, a conversation about multidisciplinary care, that somehow there are multiple doctors with multiple specialties involved. They noted that this is potentially a very important message to give out. They commented that in 12 of these movies, the patient refused cancer care. Again, that happens, but it’s clearly a rare event today. Maybe this is not really a very accurate depiction of what’s going on.
They commented on the fact that, obviously, we’re going back through the past 10 years, so there were no patients who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Again, the goal here is not to sell oncology care but to be accurate, or more accurate, about the state of treatment to the extent you can.
They noted that, in fact, there was essentially very little, if any, comment on palliative care or hospice care. The final point they made is that there was very little conversation in these movies about what we now recognize as financial distress in many of our patients. That’s an unfortunate reality and perhaps that might come in the future.
Again, the point of this was not to tell Hollywood how to make their movies but to have the oncology community recognize that if their patients or the families of their patients are seeing these movies, they are not getting a very accurate picture of what is happening in the oncology world today and that some education may very well be required.
Maurie Markman is Professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and President of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’d like to talk about a very different topic from what I normally discuss, which is probably relatively rarely addressed in clinical conversations among clinicians. There was a very provocative commentary that appeared in JCO Oncology Practice, titled “Hollywood’s Take on Oncology: Portrayal of Cancer in Movies, 2010-2020.”
All of us, as we grow up — as kids, adolescents, young adults, adults, and older individuals — watch television and movies. The older of us know that the doctor in everybody’s home that we all wanted was Marcus Welby. Of course, there was Dr. Kildare, ER, Grey’s Anatomy, and St. Elsewhere. There was Love Story and Brian’s Song. We all know about these.
This particular review was fascinating. The authors looked at 100 English-language movies that had cancer included in the storyline over the past decade. They asked some relatively simple questions: How did they discuss it? What were the tumor types they discussed? What were the outcomes?
The question is, what is the public seeing? If you watch these movies and you don’t have family experience or personal experience with cancer, what do you think about cancer? Maybe this is what you know about it. Despite what the National Cancer Institute or the American Society of Clinical Oncology tells you, this may be what you know.
What they showed was really quite interesting.
There is another very interesting phenomenon. What do you think was the most common cancer type when they did define the cancer? It was brain tumors, even though we know that brain tumors are certainly not even within the top 10. They’re obviously very serious cancers, but if you’re talking about common cancers, brain cancer doesn’t rank in the top 10, and it was the most common cancer on these shows.
The authors of this paper made the point of whether this would be an opportunity for filmmakers. Again, with the storyline, they’re trying to sell a product here, but wouldn’t this be the opportunity to provide some information about the reality of cancer? They could emphasize the fact that smokers get lung cancer. In my opinion, they could discuss cervical cancer and comment that if HPV vaccination had been done, maybe this would not have happened.
They noted that the majority of cancers in these movies were incurable, and they commented that that’s not the reality today. Today, obviously, many of our cancers that weren’t curable have become quite curable for a percentage of patients, in addition to which, obviously, with early detection, we have a very high cure rate. How about trying to get that message out, too, that we’ve actually had increasing success?
They commented that there was very rarely, if ever, a conversation about multidisciplinary care, that somehow there are multiple doctors with multiple specialties involved. They noted that this is potentially a very important message to give out. They commented that in 12 of these movies, the patient refused cancer care. Again, that happens, but it’s clearly a rare event today. Maybe this is not really a very accurate depiction of what’s going on.
They commented on the fact that, obviously, we’re going back through the past 10 years, so there were no patients who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Again, the goal here is not to sell oncology care but to be accurate, or more accurate, about the state of treatment to the extent you can.
They noted that, in fact, there was essentially very little, if any, comment on palliative care or hospice care. The final point they made is that there was very little conversation in these movies about what we now recognize as financial distress in many of our patients. That’s an unfortunate reality and perhaps that might come in the future.
Again, the point of this was not to tell Hollywood how to make their movies but to have the oncology community recognize that if their patients or the families of their patients are seeing these movies, they are not getting a very accurate picture of what is happening in the oncology world today and that some education may very well be required.
Maurie Markman is Professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and President of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’d like to talk about a very different topic from what I normally discuss, which is probably relatively rarely addressed in clinical conversations among clinicians. There was a very provocative commentary that appeared in JCO Oncology Practice, titled “Hollywood’s Take on Oncology: Portrayal of Cancer in Movies, 2010-2020.”
All of us, as we grow up — as kids, adolescents, young adults, adults, and older individuals — watch television and movies. The older of us know that the doctor in everybody’s home that we all wanted was Marcus Welby. Of course, there was Dr. Kildare, ER, Grey’s Anatomy, and St. Elsewhere. There was Love Story and Brian’s Song. We all know about these.
This particular review was fascinating. The authors looked at 100 English-language movies that had cancer included in the storyline over the past decade. They asked some relatively simple questions: How did they discuss it? What were the tumor types they discussed? What were the outcomes?
The question is, what is the public seeing? If you watch these movies and you don’t have family experience or personal experience with cancer, what do you think about cancer? Maybe this is what you know about it. Despite what the National Cancer Institute or the American Society of Clinical Oncology tells you, this may be what you know.
What they showed was really quite interesting.
There is another very interesting phenomenon. What do you think was the most common cancer type when they did define the cancer? It was brain tumors, even though we know that brain tumors are certainly not even within the top 10. They’re obviously very serious cancers, but if you’re talking about common cancers, brain cancer doesn’t rank in the top 10, and it was the most common cancer on these shows.
The authors of this paper made the point of whether this would be an opportunity for filmmakers. Again, with the storyline, they’re trying to sell a product here, but wouldn’t this be the opportunity to provide some information about the reality of cancer? They could emphasize the fact that smokers get lung cancer. In my opinion, they could discuss cervical cancer and comment that if HPV vaccination had been done, maybe this would not have happened.
They noted that the majority of cancers in these movies were incurable, and they commented that that’s not the reality today. Today, obviously, many of our cancers that weren’t curable have become quite curable for a percentage of patients, in addition to which, obviously, with early detection, we have a very high cure rate. How about trying to get that message out, too, that we’ve actually had increasing success?
They commented that there was very rarely, if ever, a conversation about multidisciplinary care, that somehow there are multiple doctors with multiple specialties involved. They noted that this is potentially a very important message to give out. They commented that in 12 of these movies, the patient refused cancer care. Again, that happens, but it’s clearly a rare event today. Maybe this is not really a very accurate depiction of what’s going on.
They commented on the fact that, obviously, we’re going back through the past 10 years, so there were no patients who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Again, the goal here is not to sell oncology care but to be accurate, or more accurate, about the state of treatment to the extent you can.
They noted that, in fact, there was essentially very little, if any, comment on palliative care or hospice care. The final point they made is that there was very little conversation in these movies about what we now recognize as financial distress in many of our patients. That’s an unfortunate reality and perhaps that might come in the future.
Again, the point of this was not to tell Hollywood how to make their movies but to have the oncology community recognize that if their patients or the families of their patients are seeing these movies, they are not getting a very accurate picture of what is happening in the oncology world today and that some education may very well be required.
Maurie Markman is Professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and President of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In Colorectal Cancer, Donating Half a Liver Could Save Lives
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.
He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?
Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.
This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.
I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.
Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.
First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?
Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.
It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.
Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.
In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.
They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.
It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.
First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.
And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.
It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.
The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?
What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?
Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.
These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.
Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?
Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.
That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.
So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.
And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.
Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?
Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.
In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.
I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.
But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?
Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.
At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.
In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.
But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.
Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?
What is that like? How do you identify them?
Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.
We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.
Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.
Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.
That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.
But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.
Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?
Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.
If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?
Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.
This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.
It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.
Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?
How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?
Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.
And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.
I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.
Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.
It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.
We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.
There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.
And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.
He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?
Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.
This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.
I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.
Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.
First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?
Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.
It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.
Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.
In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.
They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.
It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.
First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.
And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.
It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.
The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?
What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?
Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.
These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.
Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?
Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.
That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.
So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.
And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.
Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?
Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.
In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.
I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.
But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?
Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.
At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.
In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.
But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.
Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?
What is that like? How do you identify them?
Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.
We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.
Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.
Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.
That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.
But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.
Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?
Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.
If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?
Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.
This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.
It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.
Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?
How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?
Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.
And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.
I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.
Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.
It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.
We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.
There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.
And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.
He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?
Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.
This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.
I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.
Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.
First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?
Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.
It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.
Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.
In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.
They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.
It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.
First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.
And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.
It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.
The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?
What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?
Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.
These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.
Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?
Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.
That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.
So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.
And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.
Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?
Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.
In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.
I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.
But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?
Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.
At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.
In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.
But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.
Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?
What is that like? How do you identify them?
Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.
We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.
Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.
Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.
That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.
But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.
Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?
Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.
If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?
Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.
This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.
It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.
Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?
How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?
Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.
And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.
I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.
Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.
It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.
We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.
There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.
And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.