User login
Sorafenib Plus TACE Prolongs Survival in Recurrent HCC
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Recurrent intermediate-stage HCC has a poor prognosis, and TACE alone has yielded “unsatisfactory survival benefits,” the study authors explained. Retrospective studies suggest that combining sorafenib and TACE may be a better therapeutic option.
- Sorafenib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, may have a synergistic effect alongside TACE after hepatectomy in patients with positive microvascular invasion.
- To investigate further, 162 patients (median age, 55 years; 93% men) with recurrent intermediate-stage HCC and positive microvascular invasion were randomly allocated to sorafenib plus TACE or TACE alone.
- The trial was conducted at five hospitals in China from October 2019 to December 2021.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median overall survival was significantly longer with sorafenib plus TACE than with TACE alone (22.2 months vs 15.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; P < .001).
- The overall survival rate at 24 months was 44.4% in the combination group vs 24.2% in the TACE group, and the rate at 36 months was 26.9% and 13.6%, respectively.
- The combination of sorafenib and TACE also significantly prolonged progression-free survival (median 16.2 months vs 11.8 months; HR, 0.54; P < .001) and led to a significantly better objective response rate (80.2% vs 58.0%; P = .002).
- Any-grade adverse events were more common in the combination arm, but all responded well to treatment, and no unexpected adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in both arms included increased alanine aminotransferase (19.8% in both) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (23.5% in the combination group vs 18.5% in the TACE arm).
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings suggest that combined [sorafenib plus TACE] treatment should be considered for patients with recurrent intermediate-stage HCC after R0 hepatectomy with positive microvascular invasion,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Wenzhe Fan, MD, from The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The open-label design may introduce potential bias, although the results were confirmed by a masked independent imaging review. The study population was primarily from an endemic region with high rates of chronic hepatitis B virus infection, which may limit generalizability to populations with different etiologies of HCC, such as hepatitis C in Western countries.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Outstanding Youth Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Recurrent intermediate-stage HCC has a poor prognosis, and TACE alone has yielded “unsatisfactory survival benefits,” the study authors explained. Retrospective studies suggest that combining sorafenib and TACE may be a better therapeutic option.
- Sorafenib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, may have a synergistic effect alongside TACE after hepatectomy in patients with positive microvascular invasion.
- To investigate further, 162 patients (median age, 55 years; 93% men) with recurrent intermediate-stage HCC and positive microvascular invasion were randomly allocated to sorafenib plus TACE or TACE alone.
- The trial was conducted at five hospitals in China from October 2019 to December 2021.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median overall survival was significantly longer with sorafenib plus TACE than with TACE alone (22.2 months vs 15.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; P < .001).
- The overall survival rate at 24 months was 44.4% in the combination group vs 24.2% in the TACE group, and the rate at 36 months was 26.9% and 13.6%, respectively.
- The combination of sorafenib and TACE also significantly prolonged progression-free survival (median 16.2 months vs 11.8 months; HR, 0.54; P < .001) and led to a significantly better objective response rate (80.2% vs 58.0%; P = .002).
- Any-grade adverse events were more common in the combination arm, but all responded well to treatment, and no unexpected adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in both arms included increased alanine aminotransferase (19.8% in both) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (23.5% in the combination group vs 18.5% in the TACE arm).
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings suggest that combined [sorafenib plus TACE] treatment should be considered for patients with recurrent intermediate-stage HCC after R0 hepatectomy with positive microvascular invasion,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Wenzhe Fan, MD, from The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The open-label design may introduce potential bias, although the results were confirmed by a masked independent imaging review. The study population was primarily from an endemic region with high rates of chronic hepatitis B virus infection, which may limit generalizability to populations with different etiologies of HCC, such as hepatitis C in Western countries.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Outstanding Youth Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Recurrent intermediate-stage HCC has a poor prognosis, and TACE alone has yielded “unsatisfactory survival benefits,” the study authors explained. Retrospective studies suggest that combining sorafenib and TACE may be a better therapeutic option.
- Sorafenib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, may have a synergistic effect alongside TACE after hepatectomy in patients with positive microvascular invasion.
- To investigate further, 162 patients (median age, 55 years; 93% men) with recurrent intermediate-stage HCC and positive microvascular invasion were randomly allocated to sorafenib plus TACE or TACE alone.
- The trial was conducted at five hospitals in China from October 2019 to December 2021.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median overall survival was significantly longer with sorafenib plus TACE than with TACE alone (22.2 months vs 15.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; P < .001).
- The overall survival rate at 24 months was 44.4% in the combination group vs 24.2% in the TACE group, and the rate at 36 months was 26.9% and 13.6%, respectively.
- The combination of sorafenib and TACE also significantly prolonged progression-free survival (median 16.2 months vs 11.8 months; HR, 0.54; P < .001) and led to a significantly better objective response rate (80.2% vs 58.0%; P = .002).
- Any-grade adverse events were more common in the combination arm, but all responded well to treatment, and no unexpected adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in both arms included increased alanine aminotransferase (19.8% in both) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (23.5% in the combination group vs 18.5% in the TACE arm).
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings suggest that combined [sorafenib plus TACE] treatment should be considered for patients with recurrent intermediate-stage HCC after R0 hepatectomy with positive microvascular invasion,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Wenzhe Fan, MD, from The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The open-label design may introduce potential bias, although the results were confirmed by a masked independent imaging review. The study population was primarily from an endemic region with high rates of chronic hepatitis B virus infection, which may limit generalizability to populations with different etiologies of HCC, such as hepatitis C in Western countries.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Outstanding Youth Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Weight Loss Drugs Cut Cancer Risk in Diabetes Patients
Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage:
That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.
For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.
The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.
Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.
But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.
While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage:
That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.
For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.
The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.
Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.
But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.
While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage:
That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.
For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.
The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.
Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.
But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.
While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Adjuvant Avelumab Benefits Seen in High Risk, Triple Negative BC
“The 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, and 34% reduction in the risk of death suggests that avelumab may have a role in early triple negative breast cancer patients at high risk of relapse after primary surgery or with invasive residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Pierfranco Conte, MD, from the department of surgery, oncology, and gastroenterology at the University of Padua, Italy, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
A-BRAVE is the first randomized phase 3 trial patients with TNBC, treated with adjuvant avelumab, explained Dr. Conte. “Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for stage cT1c or larger, or cN+ disease. However, in case of invasive residual disease at surgery, prognosis is still very poor.”
TNBC is more immunogenic compared with other breast cancer subtypes, suggesting a role for immune checkpoint inhibitors such as avelumab in this setting, he said.
A-BRAVE Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 477 patients, median age 51 years, between June 2016 and October 2020, after their disease had progressed following initial treatment. There were two strata of patients: those who had received upfront surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy before disease progression (stratum A, 18%); and those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and then adjuvant chemo, but still had residual disease (stratum B, 82%).
Patients were randomized to either observation (n = 239) or treatment with avelumab (n = 238), at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for one year.
At a median follow-up of 52.1 months, avelumab did not show an advantage for the primary endpoint of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), with 68.3% of treated patients meeting this endpoint, compared to 63.2% of observed patients (hazard ratio [HR 0.81, P = .172].
However, the treatment did show statistically significant benefits for the secondary 3-year OS endpoint (84.8% vs 76.3%, HR 0.66, P = .035).
“Trying to understand why we did observe a greater benefit with avelumab in overall survival compared to disease-free survival, we also made a post-hoc exploratory analysis on distant disease-free survival,” explained Dr. Conte.
There was a statistically significant 3-year distant disease-free survival (DDFS) benefit for treated patients compared with controls (75.4% vs 67.9%, HR 0.7, P = .0277), translating to a 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, he noted.
Findings Are ‘Hypothesis-Generating’
The results are “hypothesis-generating at this point,” Alexandra Thomas, MD, a breast medical oncologist who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “These results suggest that the story on how to best utilize checkpoint blockade as adjuvant therapy in triple negative breast cancer may not yet be fully written.”
She emphasized the study did not meet its primary endpoint, “though the results for secondary endpoints OS and the exploratory endpoint DDFS are intriguing.
“A-BRAVE is a smaller study, especially relative to Impassion030 (ALEXANDRA), which enrolled over 2,000 patients,” she explained. “It is notable that avelumab has slightly different properties than atezolizumab, which was used in Impassion030.”
“Avelumab is also a weak PD-L2 inhibitor. Could this be important? Notably, today most patients with clinical stage II-III triple negative breast cancer will receive pembrolizumab as per KEYNOTE-522, so the potential for clinical impact is greatly reduced,” added Dr. Thomas, professor and assistant director in the department of internal medicine at Duke Cancer Institute, in Durham, North Carolina.
SWOG1814, which has not been reported yet, “also looks at pembrolizumab in patients with residual disease post neoadjuvant chemotherapy and will provide further important information on in this space,” she said.
Merck KGaA funded the study.
Dr. Conte disclosed consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Reveal Genomics; a HER2Dx patient; and providing expert testimony for AstraZeneca.
Dr. Thomas disclosed research grants from Sanofi and Merck.
“The 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, and 34% reduction in the risk of death suggests that avelumab may have a role in early triple negative breast cancer patients at high risk of relapse after primary surgery or with invasive residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Pierfranco Conte, MD, from the department of surgery, oncology, and gastroenterology at the University of Padua, Italy, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
A-BRAVE is the first randomized phase 3 trial patients with TNBC, treated with adjuvant avelumab, explained Dr. Conte. “Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for stage cT1c or larger, or cN+ disease. However, in case of invasive residual disease at surgery, prognosis is still very poor.”
TNBC is more immunogenic compared with other breast cancer subtypes, suggesting a role for immune checkpoint inhibitors such as avelumab in this setting, he said.
A-BRAVE Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 477 patients, median age 51 years, between June 2016 and October 2020, after their disease had progressed following initial treatment. There were two strata of patients: those who had received upfront surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy before disease progression (stratum A, 18%); and those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and then adjuvant chemo, but still had residual disease (stratum B, 82%).
Patients were randomized to either observation (n = 239) or treatment with avelumab (n = 238), at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for one year.
At a median follow-up of 52.1 months, avelumab did not show an advantage for the primary endpoint of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), with 68.3% of treated patients meeting this endpoint, compared to 63.2% of observed patients (hazard ratio [HR 0.81, P = .172].
However, the treatment did show statistically significant benefits for the secondary 3-year OS endpoint (84.8% vs 76.3%, HR 0.66, P = .035).
“Trying to understand why we did observe a greater benefit with avelumab in overall survival compared to disease-free survival, we also made a post-hoc exploratory analysis on distant disease-free survival,” explained Dr. Conte.
There was a statistically significant 3-year distant disease-free survival (DDFS) benefit for treated patients compared with controls (75.4% vs 67.9%, HR 0.7, P = .0277), translating to a 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, he noted.
Findings Are ‘Hypothesis-Generating’
The results are “hypothesis-generating at this point,” Alexandra Thomas, MD, a breast medical oncologist who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “These results suggest that the story on how to best utilize checkpoint blockade as adjuvant therapy in triple negative breast cancer may not yet be fully written.”
She emphasized the study did not meet its primary endpoint, “though the results for secondary endpoints OS and the exploratory endpoint DDFS are intriguing.
“A-BRAVE is a smaller study, especially relative to Impassion030 (ALEXANDRA), which enrolled over 2,000 patients,” she explained. “It is notable that avelumab has slightly different properties than atezolizumab, which was used in Impassion030.”
“Avelumab is also a weak PD-L2 inhibitor. Could this be important? Notably, today most patients with clinical stage II-III triple negative breast cancer will receive pembrolizumab as per KEYNOTE-522, so the potential for clinical impact is greatly reduced,” added Dr. Thomas, professor and assistant director in the department of internal medicine at Duke Cancer Institute, in Durham, North Carolina.
SWOG1814, which has not been reported yet, “also looks at pembrolizumab in patients with residual disease post neoadjuvant chemotherapy and will provide further important information on in this space,” she said.
Merck KGaA funded the study.
Dr. Conte disclosed consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Reveal Genomics; a HER2Dx patient; and providing expert testimony for AstraZeneca.
Dr. Thomas disclosed research grants from Sanofi and Merck.
“The 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, and 34% reduction in the risk of death suggests that avelumab may have a role in early triple negative breast cancer patients at high risk of relapse after primary surgery or with invasive residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Pierfranco Conte, MD, from the department of surgery, oncology, and gastroenterology at the University of Padua, Italy, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
A-BRAVE is the first randomized phase 3 trial patients with TNBC, treated with adjuvant avelumab, explained Dr. Conte. “Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for stage cT1c or larger, or cN+ disease. However, in case of invasive residual disease at surgery, prognosis is still very poor.”
TNBC is more immunogenic compared with other breast cancer subtypes, suggesting a role for immune checkpoint inhibitors such as avelumab in this setting, he said.
A-BRAVE Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 477 patients, median age 51 years, between June 2016 and October 2020, after their disease had progressed following initial treatment. There were two strata of patients: those who had received upfront surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy before disease progression (stratum A, 18%); and those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and then adjuvant chemo, but still had residual disease (stratum B, 82%).
Patients were randomized to either observation (n = 239) or treatment with avelumab (n = 238), at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for one year.
At a median follow-up of 52.1 months, avelumab did not show an advantage for the primary endpoint of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), with 68.3% of treated patients meeting this endpoint, compared to 63.2% of observed patients (hazard ratio [HR 0.81, P = .172].
However, the treatment did show statistically significant benefits for the secondary 3-year OS endpoint (84.8% vs 76.3%, HR 0.66, P = .035).
“Trying to understand why we did observe a greater benefit with avelumab in overall survival compared to disease-free survival, we also made a post-hoc exploratory analysis on distant disease-free survival,” explained Dr. Conte.
There was a statistically significant 3-year distant disease-free survival (DDFS) benefit for treated patients compared with controls (75.4% vs 67.9%, HR 0.7, P = .0277), translating to a 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, he noted.
Findings Are ‘Hypothesis-Generating’
The results are “hypothesis-generating at this point,” Alexandra Thomas, MD, a breast medical oncologist who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “These results suggest that the story on how to best utilize checkpoint blockade as adjuvant therapy in triple negative breast cancer may not yet be fully written.”
She emphasized the study did not meet its primary endpoint, “though the results for secondary endpoints OS and the exploratory endpoint DDFS are intriguing.
“A-BRAVE is a smaller study, especially relative to Impassion030 (ALEXANDRA), which enrolled over 2,000 patients,” she explained. “It is notable that avelumab has slightly different properties than atezolizumab, which was used in Impassion030.”
“Avelumab is also a weak PD-L2 inhibitor. Could this be important? Notably, today most patients with clinical stage II-III triple negative breast cancer will receive pembrolizumab as per KEYNOTE-522, so the potential for clinical impact is greatly reduced,” added Dr. Thomas, professor and assistant director in the department of internal medicine at Duke Cancer Institute, in Durham, North Carolina.
SWOG1814, which has not been reported yet, “also looks at pembrolizumab in patients with residual disease post neoadjuvant chemotherapy and will provide further important information on in this space,” she said.
Merck KGaA funded the study.
Dr. Conte disclosed consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Reveal Genomics; a HER2Dx patient; and providing expert testimony for AstraZeneca.
Dr. Thomas disclosed research grants from Sanofi and Merck.
FROM ASCO 2024
Clinical Controversy: Standard Dose or Baby TAM for Breast Cancer Prevention?
Should 5 mg of tamoxifen — known as “baby TAM” — or the usual 20 mg dose be standard of care for breast cancer prevention in high-risk women?
Research to date clearly shows that tamoxifen can reduce the risk for breast cancer in high-risk individuals by 30%-50%. Recent evidence also indicates that this chemoprevention approach can reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer by as much as 57%.
In 2019, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued updated recommendations that clinicians offer risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women at an increased risk for breast cancer and a low risk for adverse medication effects.
However, this prophylactic strategy remains underused.
A major roadblock: The drugs’ side effects, which include venous thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer as well as symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes and sexual issues, have made uptake and adherence a challenge.
Offering women a lower dose of tamoxifen could allay fears about toxicities and improve uptake as well as reduce side effects and boost long-term adherence among those receiving baby TAM.
However,
The Debate
Years ago, Andrea De Censi, MD, a breast cancer researcher at the Galliera Hospital in Genova, Italy, and his colleagues reasoned that, because tamoxifen is a competitive estrogen receptor inhibitor, it may indeed have a minimal effective dose below 20 mg/d.
The fruits of that line of thought were presented to the world in the TAM-01 trial, first published in 2019, which pitted tamoxifen 5 mg/d for 3 years against placebo in 500 women with high-risk lesions, including lobular and ductal carcinoma in situ.
Dr. De Censi and colleagues found that baby TAM reduced the risk for invasive breast cancer by 52% and the risk for contralateral breast cancer by 75%.
Treatment adherence was slightly higher in the baby TAM group at 65% vs 61% in the placebo group.
A recent 10-year follow-up showed ongoing benefits associated with baby TAM vs placebo — a 42% reduction in breast cancer and a 64% drop in contralateral lesions.
The baby TAM group vs placebo experienced a slight increase in hot flashes but no significant increase in other common side effects.
Regarding serious adverse events, the baby TAM arm had one case of stage 1 endometrial cancer (0.4% of patients) and 20 cases of endometrial polyps (5%) vs 13 cases of endometrial polyps in the placebo arm. But there were no significant differences in thrombosis, cataracts, bone fractures, and other serious events.
Dr. De Censi said he’s surprised the baby TAM vs tamoxifen topic is still being debated. “Baby TAM, in my opinion, is a new standard of care for endocrine prevention of breast cancer in high-risk [women],” and baby TAM over 3 years is enough, said Dr. De Censi during a debate on the topic at the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer Congress in Berlin.
Gareth Evans, MD, a cancer genetics and prevention specialist at the University of Manchester, Manchester, England, however, isn’t convinced.
During the debate, Dr. Evans explained that his main concern was that the baby TAM trial was limited to women with high-risk lesions, not other common reasons for tamoxifen prophylaxis, such as a positive family history or BRCA mutations.
“In Manchester, we have put over a thousand women on tamoxifen who have a family history or other risk factors, not high-risk lesions,” and there simply isn’t definitive evidence for baby TAM in these women, Dr. Evans said.
The vast weight of evidence for tamoxifen prophylaxis, he added, is in trials involving tens of thousands of women, followed in some cases for 20 years, who received the 20 mg dose for 5 years.
As a result, women in Manchester are started on 20 mg and dropped down to 5 mg only for side effects. That way, Evans explained, we are not taking away the benefit among women who can tolerate 20 mg.
Meanwhile, there’s no evidence that baby TAM improves medication adherence, he noted. Trials have reported similar adherence rates to baby TAM and standard dose tamoxifen as well as no definitive evidence that the risk for cancer and thrombosis is less with baby TAM, he said.
In fact, Dr. Evans noted, “many women take tamoxifen 20 mg for 5 years with no side effects.”
Overall, “I don’t think we’ve got the evidence yet to drop” dosages, particularly in women without high-risk lesions, Dr. Evans said. A real concern, he added, is poor metabolizers for whom 5 mg won’t be enough to have a preventive effect.
Dr. De Censi noted, however, that there will likely never be a definitive answer to the question of baby TAM vs standard dosing because industry has no financial incentive to do a head-to-head trial; tamoxifen went off patent over 30 years ago.
Still, a poll of the audience favored Evans’ approach — 80% said they would start high-risk women on 20 mg for breast cancer prophylaxis and reduce for side effects as needed.
Dr. De Censi didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Evans is a consultant/advisor for AstraZeneca, SpringWorks, Recursion, Everything Genetic, and Syantra.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should 5 mg of tamoxifen — known as “baby TAM” — or the usual 20 mg dose be standard of care for breast cancer prevention in high-risk women?
Research to date clearly shows that tamoxifen can reduce the risk for breast cancer in high-risk individuals by 30%-50%. Recent evidence also indicates that this chemoprevention approach can reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer by as much as 57%.
In 2019, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued updated recommendations that clinicians offer risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women at an increased risk for breast cancer and a low risk for adverse medication effects.
However, this prophylactic strategy remains underused.
A major roadblock: The drugs’ side effects, which include venous thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer as well as symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes and sexual issues, have made uptake and adherence a challenge.
Offering women a lower dose of tamoxifen could allay fears about toxicities and improve uptake as well as reduce side effects and boost long-term adherence among those receiving baby TAM.
However,
The Debate
Years ago, Andrea De Censi, MD, a breast cancer researcher at the Galliera Hospital in Genova, Italy, and his colleagues reasoned that, because tamoxifen is a competitive estrogen receptor inhibitor, it may indeed have a minimal effective dose below 20 mg/d.
The fruits of that line of thought were presented to the world in the TAM-01 trial, first published in 2019, which pitted tamoxifen 5 mg/d for 3 years against placebo in 500 women with high-risk lesions, including lobular and ductal carcinoma in situ.
Dr. De Censi and colleagues found that baby TAM reduced the risk for invasive breast cancer by 52% and the risk for contralateral breast cancer by 75%.
Treatment adherence was slightly higher in the baby TAM group at 65% vs 61% in the placebo group.
A recent 10-year follow-up showed ongoing benefits associated with baby TAM vs placebo — a 42% reduction in breast cancer and a 64% drop in contralateral lesions.
The baby TAM group vs placebo experienced a slight increase in hot flashes but no significant increase in other common side effects.
Regarding serious adverse events, the baby TAM arm had one case of stage 1 endometrial cancer (0.4% of patients) and 20 cases of endometrial polyps (5%) vs 13 cases of endometrial polyps in the placebo arm. But there were no significant differences in thrombosis, cataracts, bone fractures, and other serious events.
Dr. De Censi said he’s surprised the baby TAM vs tamoxifen topic is still being debated. “Baby TAM, in my opinion, is a new standard of care for endocrine prevention of breast cancer in high-risk [women],” and baby TAM over 3 years is enough, said Dr. De Censi during a debate on the topic at the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer Congress in Berlin.
Gareth Evans, MD, a cancer genetics and prevention specialist at the University of Manchester, Manchester, England, however, isn’t convinced.
During the debate, Dr. Evans explained that his main concern was that the baby TAM trial was limited to women with high-risk lesions, not other common reasons for tamoxifen prophylaxis, such as a positive family history or BRCA mutations.
“In Manchester, we have put over a thousand women on tamoxifen who have a family history or other risk factors, not high-risk lesions,” and there simply isn’t definitive evidence for baby TAM in these women, Dr. Evans said.
The vast weight of evidence for tamoxifen prophylaxis, he added, is in trials involving tens of thousands of women, followed in some cases for 20 years, who received the 20 mg dose for 5 years.
As a result, women in Manchester are started on 20 mg and dropped down to 5 mg only for side effects. That way, Evans explained, we are not taking away the benefit among women who can tolerate 20 mg.
Meanwhile, there’s no evidence that baby TAM improves medication adherence, he noted. Trials have reported similar adherence rates to baby TAM and standard dose tamoxifen as well as no definitive evidence that the risk for cancer and thrombosis is less with baby TAM, he said.
In fact, Dr. Evans noted, “many women take tamoxifen 20 mg for 5 years with no side effects.”
Overall, “I don’t think we’ve got the evidence yet to drop” dosages, particularly in women without high-risk lesions, Dr. Evans said. A real concern, he added, is poor metabolizers for whom 5 mg won’t be enough to have a preventive effect.
Dr. De Censi noted, however, that there will likely never be a definitive answer to the question of baby TAM vs standard dosing because industry has no financial incentive to do a head-to-head trial; tamoxifen went off patent over 30 years ago.
Still, a poll of the audience favored Evans’ approach — 80% said they would start high-risk women on 20 mg for breast cancer prophylaxis and reduce for side effects as needed.
Dr. De Censi didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Evans is a consultant/advisor for AstraZeneca, SpringWorks, Recursion, Everything Genetic, and Syantra.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should 5 mg of tamoxifen — known as “baby TAM” — or the usual 20 mg dose be standard of care for breast cancer prevention in high-risk women?
Research to date clearly shows that tamoxifen can reduce the risk for breast cancer in high-risk individuals by 30%-50%. Recent evidence also indicates that this chemoprevention approach can reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer by as much as 57%.
In 2019, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued updated recommendations that clinicians offer risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women at an increased risk for breast cancer and a low risk for adverse medication effects.
However, this prophylactic strategy remains underused.
A major roadblock: The drugs’ side effects, which include venous thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer as well as symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes and sexual issues, have made uptake and adherence a challenge.
Offering women a lower dose of tamoxifen could allay fears about toxicities and improve uptake as well as reduce side effects and boost long-term adherence among those receiving baby TAM.
However,
The Debate
Years ago, Andrea De Censi, MD, a breast cancer researcher at the Galliera Hospital in Genova, Italy, and his colleagues reasoned that, because tamoxifen is a competitive estrogen receptor inhibitor, it may indeed have a minimal effective dose below 20 mg/d.
The fruits of that line of thought were presented to the world in the TAM-01 trial, first published in 2019, which pitted tamoxifen 5 mg/d for 3 years against placebo in 500 women with high-risk lesions, including lobular and ductal carcinoma in situ.
Dr. De Censi and colleagues found that baby TAM reduced the risk for invasive breast cancer by 52% and the risk for contralateral breast cancer by 75%.
Treatment adherence was slightly higher in the baby TAM group at 65% vs 61% in the placebo group.
A recent 10-year follow-up showed ongoing benefits associated with baby TAM vs placebo — a 42% reduction in breast cancer and a 64% drop in contralateral lesions.
The baby TAM group vs placebo experienced a slight increase in hot flashes but no significant increase in other common side effects.
Regarding serious adverse events, the baby TAM arm had one case of stage 1 endometrial cancer (0.4% of patients) and 20 cases of endometrial polyps (5%) vs 13 cases of endometrial polyps in the placebo arm. But there were no significant differences in thrombosis, cataracts, bone fractures, and other serious events.
Dr. De Censi said he’s surprised the baby TAM vs tamoxifen topic is still being debated. “Baby TAM, in my opinion, is a new standard of care for endocrine prevention of breast cancer in high-risk [women],” and baby TAM over 3 years is enough, said Dr. De Censi during a debate on the topic at the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer Congress in Berlin.
Gareth Evans, MD, a cancer genetics and prevention specialist at the University of Manchester, Manchester, England, however, isn’t convinced.
During the debate, Dr. Evans explained that his main concern was that the baby TAM trial was limited to women with high-risk lesions, not other common reasons for tamoxifen prophylaxis, such as a positive family history or BRCA mutations.
“In Manchester, we have put over a thousand women on tamoxifen who have a family history or other risk factors, not high-risk lesions,” and there simply isn’t definitive evidence for baby TAM in these women, Dr. Evans said.
The vast weight of evidence for tamoxifen prophylaxis, he added, is in trials involving tens of thousands of women, followed in some cases for 20 years, who received the 20 mg dose for 5 years.
As a result, women in Manchester are started on 20 mg and dropped down to 5 mg only for side effects. That way, Evans explained, we are not taking away the benefit among women who can tolerate 20 mg.
Meanwhile, there’s no evidence that baby TAM improves medication adherence, he noted. Trials have reported similar adherence rates to baby TAM and standard dose tamoxifen as well as no definitive evidence that the risk for cancer and thrombosis is less with baby TAM, he said.
In fact, Dr. Evans noted, “many women take tamoxifen 20 mg for 5 years with no side effects.”
Overall, “I don’t think we’ve got the evidence yet to drop” dosages, particularly in women without high-risk lesions, Dr. Evans said. A real concern, he added, is poor metabolizers for whom 5 mg won’t be enough to have a preventive effect.
Dr. De Censi noted, however, that there will likely never be a definitive answer to the question of baby TAM vs standard dosing because industry has no financial incentive to do a head-to-head trial; tamoxifen went off patent over 30 years ago.
Still, a poll of the audience favored Evans’ approach — 80% said they would start high-risk women on 20 mg for breast cancer prophylaxis and reduce for side effects as needed.
Dr. De Censi didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Evans is a consultant/advisor for AstraZeneca, SpringWorks, Recursion, Everything Genetic, and Syantra.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Trifluridine/tipiracil Plus Bevacizumab: A Game Changer in Late-Stage Refractory mCRC
An elderly gentleman was truly suffering, so his doctor decided to try something new.
“He’d had a number of cumulative side effects after almost two years of IV chemotherapy for his metastatic colon cancer,” said Anuj Patel, MD, a senior physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, recalling his patient. “When we switched him to combination treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab, he constantly remarked on how well he now felt. He described no side effects from this new regimen.”
Trifluridine/tipiracil (Lonsurf) had been used to treat advanced gastric cancer, while bevacizumab had been therapeutic for a wider range of diseases, including cervical, brain, liver, kidney, gynecological and lung cancers. Used together for treating refractory mCRC, well-known initial findings about their effectiveness have been proven true over time.
“Patients taking both drugs can experience, on average, a life extension of three months,” said Richard M. Goldberg, MD, professor emeritus of the West Virginia University Cancer Institute and director of Fight Colorectal Cancer.
The History of the Combined Therapy’s Approval
The FDA originally approved trifluridine/tipiracil in September 2015 for use in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients eligible to take it had to have been treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) biological therapy, and—if RAS wild-type—an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy, according to data published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. The FDA’s August 2023 approval of the trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab combination regimen is for patients meeting the same eligibility requirements.
Another drug, regorafenib, had already been approved by the FDA in September 2012 to treat mCRC. The drug has a wide range of potential side effects, however, including complications relating to the limbs.
“One of my patients tried regorafenib as his initial third- line treatment,” Dr. Goldberg said. “I checked in on him at his farm, and he was sitting in the barn near his tractor.
He had such severe hand-foot syndrome that he could barely walk.”
Trifluridine/tipiracil alone proved to be very helpful in this case. “We switched him to it, and he tolerated it well,” Dr. Goldberg continued. “He got his fields plowed and was on it for months before he passed away. We both felt it kept him going longer.”
A new research review confirms the regimen’s success, determining that trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab was associated with improved outcomes compared to therapy solely with trifluridine/tipiracil.
A True Practice Changer
Now that the regimen has been on the market for more than half a year, there are longer-term data available.
Patients on average live within the same timeframe as the patients in the SUNLIGHT study, and many feel physically better on the therapy. “The combination has very quickly shifted the standard of care,” Dr. Goldberg said.
The regimen can also provide significant psychological benefits to patients.
“As patients can maintain good performance status for longer with the combination, it increases the perception of quality of life,” said Jacobo Hincapie-Echeverri, MD, a GI and geriatric oncologist at Orlando Health Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida.
The regimen is unique too, in that it can help doctors plan additional treatment strategies.
“This current approval, for the combination of trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab, is practice-changing in that it helps clarify the sequence for later treatments for patients with mCRC,” said Dr. Patel, who is also clinical director of the Center for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Previously, it had been difficult to decide between trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib in this setting.”
The fact that the regimen has been shown to give time and improved quality of life to patients in ways regorafenib does not is clarifying. “Now, with the improved outcomes seen, I do think that trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab is the better option for most mCRC patients after IV chemotherapies,” Dr. Patel added.
When it comes to his specific experience with prescribing the regimen for his patients, Dr. Patel reported that it’s easier on his patients than other therapies.
“I find that it is generally well tolerated,” he elaborated. “As an oral agent, it is also usually somewhat easier to take (than other delivery methods of medication). These factors are critical for patients who have likely already had at least 2 or 3 prior lines of chemotherapy. I have had many patients with mCRC who, after disease progression on prior IV chemotherapy regimens, have had periods of meaningful disease control – often with fewer and manageable side effects.”
Dr. Goldberg mentioned another benefit.
“The nice thing about the combination of trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab is that in terms of toxicity, there’s very little difference compared to the toxicity of trifluridine/tipiracil used alone.”
Are There Downsides to the Regimen?
The pros are obvious, but the regimen has some cons as well. Medically, patients should have a platelet count over 75,000/mm3 and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) over 1,500/mm3 prior to the start of each cycle, and their liver and renal function should be monitored.
Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer must be also carefully monitored for hematologic adverse events (AEs) , including chemotherapy-associated neutropenia. Biweekly treatments may reduce the risk of AEs as a whole, however, according to research.
The regimen is also expensive – an approximate cost of $8,191 for a 28-day supply. According to a new study, patients managing both AE expenses along with the cost of trifluridine/tipiracil-bevacizumab face a monthly bill of about $17,179.
Some very good news, though: 100% of Medicare drug plans cover trifluridine/tipiracil, with an average copay of $57-$292. Bevacizumab is also covered by Medicare, with a copay as low as $0-$25.
Private insurers do cover the drugs, depending on a patient’s specific plan. However, if a patient’s claim is denied, financial assistance for trifluridine/tipiracil through the drug’s manufacturers may be available for some patients, reducing prescriptions to a zero cost in some cases. Bevacizumab can be made available to patients who may not have health insurance at all, too. Patients can use a financial assistance tool through the drug’s manufacturer to receive up to $25,000 in yearly copay assistance.
What Does the Latest Research on the Regimen Indicate?
In May 2024, two abstracts were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) that explored expanded possible use of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as a treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.
The first abstract studied trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as upfront treatment for mCRC, adding capecitabine to the regimen.
“It’s a phase 1 study looking at dose findings for the three-drug combination, where the active drug is a chemotherapy agent classified as a fluoropyrimidine ... I would characterize this as a study combining two [fluoropyrimidines] with a single targeted therapy,” Dr. Goldberg said.
“Combining two fluoropyrimidines is an unusual approach, because they tend to have overlapping side effects, and the potential is there for either innate drug resistance to the class of drugs or that the combination of two agents that work by a similar mechanism of action could hasten the development of acquired drug resistance. There is apparently a signal that combining the two chemotherapy agents enhances each other’s activity in cell culture and animal models,” he added.
Ultimately, Dr. Goldberg said he thinks more evidence is needed to prove the regimen’s effectiveness.
“This is a very early study and really provides no information about its potential given that no response data was presented,” he added. “While this is an interesting idea, it is unclear if it will pan out until we see the data on the Phase II study in progress.”
The other abstract looked at the impact of colorectal liver metastases in patients with mCRC who in phase 3 of the SUNLIGHT trial received trifluridine/tipiracil with or without bevacizumab.
“There is not much that is novel here,” Dr. Goldberg said. “The retrospective analysis shows that trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab is better than trifluridine/tipiracil alone in the subset of patients with liver metastases, as it was shown to be in the entire patient population. While this is reassuring, it’s not unexpected, especially since the vast majority of people enrolled in the SUNLIGHT trial had liver metastases.”
The Bottom Line
In the future, the potential exists for trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab to work in first-line and second-line patients.
“Seventy percent of colorectal cancer patients reach second line treatment right now, but only 30% reach third line treatment — either they become too sick to continue, or choose not to,” Dr. Goldberg said. “The hope is that using these drugs earlier can help more patients reach and prolong treatment.”
It’s also possible that the regimen can be applied in new ways.
“Further research combining trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab with other targeted therapies could yield additional advances for refractory mCRC patients,” Dr. Hincapie-Echeverri said. “The survival benefit of this therapy reinforces the importance of continuing to develop new therapies to improve outcomes in the refractory mCRC setting.”
Dr. Patel’s patient felt lucky to simply live a longer life.
Because of the regimen, “his cancer remained stable for approximately 8 months. Upon its progression, he chose not to pursue any further chemotherapy. He instead expressed his gratitude at having been able to feel more like himself for nearly a year.”
Dr. Patel received research funding in 2017 from Taiho, which manufactures trifluridine/tipiracil. He receives no current funding from Taiho and has no additional conflicts of interest. Dr. Goldberg helped represent Taiho in a patent law dispute regarding Lonsurf for which he was paid, but he is no longer paid by the company. Dr. Hincapie-Echeverri is a speaker for Astellas Pharma, which does not manufacture trifluridine/tipiracil or bevacizumab, and he has no additional conflicts of interest.
An elderly gentleman was truly suffering, so his doctor decided to try something new.
“He’d had a number of cumulative side effects after almost two years of IV chemotherapy for his metastatic colon cancer,” said Anuj Patel, MD, a senior physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, recalling his patient. “When we switched him to combination treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab, he constantly remarked on how well he now felt. He described no side effects from this new regimen.”
Trifluridine/tipiracil (Lonsurf) had been used to treat advanced gastric cancer, while bevacizumab had been therapeutic for a wider range of diseases, including cervical, brain, liver, kidney, gynecological and lung cancers. Used together for treating refractory mCRC, well-known initial findings about their effectiveness have been proven true over time.
“Patients taking both drugs can experience, on average, a life extension of three months,” said Richard M. Goldberg, MD, professor emeritus of the West Virginia University Cancer Institute and director of Fight Colorectal Cancer.
The History of the Combined Therapy’s Approval
The FDA originally approved trifluridine/tipiracil in September 2015 for use in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients eligible to take it had to have been treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) biological therapy, and—if RAS wild-type—an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy, according to data published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. The FDA’s August 2023 approval of the trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab combination regimen is for patients meeting the same eligibility requirements.
Another drug, regorafenib, had already been approved by the FDA in September 2012 to treat mCRC. The drug has a wide range of potential side effects, however, including complications relating to the limbs.
“One of my patients tried regorafenib as his initial third- line treatment,” Dr. Goldberg said. “I checked in on him at his farm, and he was sitting in the barn near his tractor.
He had such severe hand-foot syndrome that he could barely walk.”
Trifluridine/tipiracil alone proved to be very helpful in this case. “We switched him to it, and he tolerated it well,” Dr. Goldberg continued. “He got his fields plowed and was on it for months before he passed away. We both felt it kept him going longer.”
A new research review confirms the regimen’s success, determining that trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab was associated with improved outcomes compared to therapy solely with trifluridine/tipiracil.
A True Practice Changer
Now that the regimen has been on the market for more than half a year, there are longer-term data available.
Patients on average live within the same timeframe as the patients in the SUNLIGHT study, and many feel physically better on the therapy. “The combination has very quickly shifted the standard of care,” Dr. Goldberg said.
The regimen can also provide significant psychological benefits to patients.
“As patients can maintain good performance status for longer with the combination, it increases the perception of quality of life,” said Jacobo Hincapie-Echeverri, MD, a GI and geriatric oncologist at Orlando Health Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida.
The regimen is unique too, in that it can help doctors plan additional treatment strategies.
“This current approval, for the combination of trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab, is practice-changing in that it helps clarify the sequence for later treatments for patients with mCRC,” said Dr. Patel, who is also clinical director of the Center for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Previously, it had been difficult to decide between trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib in this setting.”
The fact that the regimen has been shown to give time and improved quality of life to patients in ways regorafenib does not is clarifying. “Now, with the improved outcomes seen, I do think that trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab is the better option for most mCRC patients after IV chemotherapies,” Dr. Patel added.
When it comes to his specific experience with prescribing the regimen for his patients, Dr. Patel reported that it’s easier on his patients than other therapies.
“I find that it is generally well tolerated,” he elaborated. “As an oral agent, it is also usually somewhat easier to take (than other delivery methods of medication). These factors are critical for patients who have likely already had at least 2 or 3 prior lines of chemotherapy. I have had many patients with mCRC who, after disease progression on prior IV chemotherapy regimens, have had periods of meaningful disease control – often with fewer and manageable side effects.”
Dr. Goldberg mentioned another benefit.
“The nice thing about the combination of trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab is that in terms of toxicity, there’s very little difference compared to the toxicity of trifluridine/tipiracil used alone.”
Are There Downsides to the Regimen?
The pros are obvious, but the regimen has some cons as well. Medically, patients should have a platelet count over 75,000/mm3 and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) over 1,500/mm3 prior to the start of each cycle, and their liver and renal function should be monitored.
Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer must be also carefully monitored for hematologic adverse events (AEs) , including chemotherapy-associated neutropenia. Biweekly treatments may reduce the risk of AEs as a whole, however, according to research.
The regimen is also expensive – an approximate cost of $8,191 for a 28-day supply. According to a new study, patients managing both AE expenses along with the cost of trifluridine/tipiracil-bevacizumab face a monthly bill of about $17,179.
Some very good news, though: 100% of Medicare drug plans cover trifluridine/tipiracil, with an average copay of $57-$292. Bevacizumab is also covered by Medicare, with a copay as low as $0-$25.
Private insurers do cover the drugs, depending on a patient’s specific plan. However, if a patient’s claim is denied, financial assistance for trifluridine/tipiracil through the drug’s manufacturers may be available for some patients, reducing prescriptions to a zero cost in some cases. Bevacizumab can be made available to patients who may not have health insurance at all, too. Patients can use a financial assistance tool through the drug’s manufacturer to receive up to $25,000 in yearly copay assistance.
What Does the Latest Research on the Regimen Indicate?
In May 2024, two abstracts were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) that explored expanded possible use of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as a treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.
The first abstract studied trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as upfront treatment for mCRC, adding capecitabine to the regimen.
“It’s a phase 1 study looking at dose findings for the three-drug combination, where the active drug is a chemotherapy agent classified as a fluoropyrimidine ... I would characterize this as a study combining two [fluoropyrimidines] with a single targeted therapy,” Dr. Goldberg said.
“Combining two fluoropyrimidines is an unusual approach, because they tend to have overlapping side effects, and the potential is there for either innate drug resistance to the class of drugs or that the combination of two agents that work by a similar mechanism of action could hasten the development of acquired drug resistance. There is apparently a signal that combining the two chemotherapy agents enhances each other’s activity in cell culture and animal models,” he added.
Ultimately, Dr. Goldberg said he thinks more evidence is needed to prove the regimen’s effectiveness.
“This is a very early study and really provides no information about its potential given that no response data was presented,” he added. “While this is an interesting idea, it is unclear if it will pan out until we see the data on the Phase II study in progress.”
The other abstract looked at the impact of colorectal liver metastases in patients with mCRC who in phase 3 of the SUNLIGHT trial received trifluridine/tipiracil with or without bevacizumab.
“There is not much that is novel here,” Dr. Goldberg said. “The retrospective analysis shows that trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab is better than trifluridine/tipiracil alone in the subset of patients with liver metastases, as it was shown to be in the entire patient population. While this is reassuring, it’s not unexpected, especially since the vast majority of people enrolled in the SUNLIGHT trial had liver metastases.”
The Bottom Line
In the future, the potential exists for trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab to work in first-line and second-line patients.
“Seventy percent of colorectal cancer patients reach second line treatment right now, but only 30% reach third line treatment — either they become too sick to continue, or choose not to,” Dr. Goldberg said. “The hope is that using these drugs earlier can help more patients reach and prolong treatment.”
It’s also possible that the regimen can be applied in new ways.
“Further research combining trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab with other targeted therapies could yield additional advances for refractory mCRC patients,” Dr. Hincapie-Echeverri said. “The survival benefit of this therapy reinforces the importance of continuing to develop new therapies to improve outcomes in the refractory mCRC setting.”
Dr. Patel’s patient felt lucky to simply live a longer life.
Because of the regimen, “his cancer remained stable for approximately 8 months. Upon its progression, he chose not to pursue any further chemotherapy. He instead expressed his gratitude at having been able to feel more like himself for nearly a year.”
Dr. Patel received research funding in 2017 from Taiho, which manufactures trifluridine/tipiracil. He receives no current funding from Taiho and has no additional conflicts of interest. Dr. Goldberg helped represent Taiho in a patent law dispute regarding Lonsurf for which he was paid, but he is no longer paid by the company. Dr. Hincapie-Echeverri is a speaker for Astellas Pharma, which does not manufacture trifluridine/tipiracil or bevacizumab, and he has no additional conflicts of interest.
An elderly gentleman was truly suffering, so his doctor decided to try something new.
“He’d had a number of cumulative side effects after almost two years of IV chemotherapy for his metastatic colon cancer,” said Anuj Patel, MD, a senior physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, recalling his patient. “When we switched him to combination treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab, he constantly remarked on how well he now felt. He described no side effects from this new regimen.”
Trifluridine/tipiracil (Lonsurf) had been used to treat advanced gastric cancer, while bevacizumab had been therapeutic for a wider range of diseases, including cervical, brain, liver, kidney, gynecological and lung cancers. Used together for treating refractory mCRC, well-known initial findings about their effectiveness have been proven true over time.
“Patients taking both drugs can experience, on average, a life extension of three months,” said Richard M. Goldberg, MD, professor emeritus of the West Virginia University Cancer Institute and director of Fight Colorectal Cancer.
The History of the Combined Therapy’s Approval
The FDA originally approved trifluridine/tipiracil in September 2015 for use in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients eligible to take it had to have been treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) biological therapy, and—if RAS wild-type—an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy, according to data published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. The FDA’s August 2023 approval of the trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab combination regimen is for patients meeting the same eligibility requirements.
Another drug, regorafenib, had already been approved by the FDA in September 2012 to treat mCRC. The drug has a wide range of potential side effects, however, including complications relating to the limbs.
“One of my patients tried regorafenib as his initial third- line treatment,” Dr. Goldberg said. “I checked in on him at his farm, and he was sitting in the barn near his tractor.
He had such severe hand-foot syndrome that he could barely walk.”
Trifluridine/tipiracil alone proved to be very helpful in this case. “We switched him to it, and he tolerated it well,” Dr. Goldberg continued. “He got his fields plowed and was on it for months before he passed away. We both felt it kept him going longer.”
A new research review confirms the regimen’s success, determining that trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab was associated with improved outcomes compared to therapy solely with trifluridine/tipiracil.
A True Practice Changer
Now that the regimen has been on the market for more than half a year, there are longer-term data available.
Patients on average live within the same timeframe as the patients in the SUNLIGHT study, and many feel physically better on the therapy. “The combination has very quickly shifted the standard of care,” Dr. Goldberg said.
The regimen can also provide significant psychological benefits to patients.
“As patients can maintain good performance status for longer with the combination, it increases the perception of quality of life,” said Jacobo Hincapie-Echeverri, MD, a GI and geriatric oncologist at Orlando Health Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida.
The regimen is unique too, in that it can help doctors plan additional treatment strategies.
“This current approval, for the combination of trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab, is practice-changing in that it helps clarify the sequence for later treatments for patients with mCRC,” said Dr. Patel, who is also clinical director of the Center for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Previously, it had been difficult to decide between trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib in this setting.”
The fact that the regimen has been shown to give time and improved quality of life to patients in ways regorafenib does not is clarifying. “Now, with the improved outcomes seen, I do think that trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab is the better option for most mCRC patients after IV chemotherapies,” Dr. Patel added.
When it comes to his specific experience with prescribing the regimen for his patients, Dr. Patel reported that it’s easier on his patients than other therapies.
“I find that it is generally well tolerated,” he elaborated. “As an oral agent, it is also usually somewhat easier to take (than other delivery methods of medication). These factors are critical for patients who have likely already had at least 2 or 3 prior lines of chemotherapy. I have had many patients with mCRC who, after disease progression on prior IV chemotherapy regimens, have had periods of meaningful disease control – often with fewer and manageable side effects.”
Dr. Goldberg mentioned another benefit.
“The nice thing about the combination of trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab is that in terms of toxicity, there’s very little difference compared to the toxicity of trifluridine/tipiracil used alone.”
Are There Downsides to the Regimen?
The pros are obvious, but the regimen has some cons as well. Medically, patients should have a platelet count over 75,000/mm3 and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) over 1,500/mm3 prior to the start of each cycle, and their liver and renal function should be monitored.
Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer must be also carefully monitored for hematologic adverse events (AEs) , including chemotherapy-associated neutropenia. Biweekly treatments may reduce the risk of AEs as a whole, however, according to research.
The regimen is also expensive – an approximate cost of $8,191 for a 28-day supply. According to a new study, patients managing both AE expenses along with the cost of trifluridine/tipiracil-bevacizumab face a monthly bill of about $17,179.
Some very good news, though: 100% of Medicare drug plans cover trifluridine/tipiracil, with an average copay of $57-$292. Bevacizumab is also covered by Medicare, with a copay as low as $0-$25.
Private insurers do cover the drugs, depending on a patient’s specific plan. However, if a patient’s claim is denied, financial assistance for trifluridine/tipiracil through the drug’s manufacturers may be available for some patients, reducing prescriptions to a zero cost in some cases. Bevacizumab can be made available to patients who may not have health insurance at all, too. Patients can use a financial assistance tool through the drug’s manufacturer to receive up to $25,000 in yearly copay assistance.
What Does the Latest Research on the Regimen Indicate?
In May 2024, two abstracts were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) that explored expanded possible use of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as a treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.
The first abstract studied trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as upfront treatment for mCRC, adding capecitabine to the regimen.
“It’s a phase 1 study looking at dose findings for the three-drug combination, where the active drug is a chemotherapy agent classified as a fluoropyrimidine ... I would characterize this as a study combining two [fluoropyrimidines] with a single targeted therapy,” Dr. Goldberg said.
“Combining two fluoropyrimidines is an unusual approach, because they tend to have overlapping side effects, and the potential is there for either innate drug resistance to the class of drugs or that the combination of two agents that work by a similar mechanism of action could hasten the development of acquired drug resistance. There is apparently a signal that combining the two chemotherapy agents enhances each other’s activity in cell culture and animal models,” he added.
Ultimately, Dr. Goldberg said he thinks more evidence is needed to prove the regimen’s effectiveness.
“This is a very early study and really provides no information about its potential given that no response data was presented,” he added. “While this is an interesting idea, it is unclear if it will pan out until we see the data on the Phase II study in progress.”
The other abstract looked at the impact of colorectal liver metastases in patients with mCRC who in phase 3 of the SUNLIGHT trial received trifluridine/tipiracil with or without bevacizumab.
“There is not much that is novel here,” Dr. Goldberg said. “The retrospective analysis shows that trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab is better than trifluridine/tipiracil alone in the subset of patients with liver metastases, as it was shown to be in the entire patient population. While this is reassuring, it’s not unexpected, especially since the vast majority of people enrolled in the SUNLIGHT trial had liver metastases.”
The Bottom Line
In the future, the potential exists for trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab to work in first-line and second-line patients.
“Seventy percent of colorectal cancer patients reach second line treatment right now, but only 30% reach third line treatment — either they become too sick to continue, or choose not to,” Dr. Goldberg said. “The hope is that using these drugs earlier can help more patients reach and prolong treatment.”
It’s also possible that the regimen can be applied in new ways.
“Further research combining trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab with other targeted therapies could yield additional advances for refractory mCRC patients,” Dr. Hincapie-Echeverri said. “The survival benefit of this therapy reinforces the importance of continuing to develop new therapies to improve outcomes in the refractory mCRC setting.”
Dr. Patel’s patient felt lucky to simply live a longer life.
Because of the regimen, “his cancer remained stable for approximately 8 months. Upon its progression, he chose not to pursue any further chemotherapy. He instead expressed his gratitude at having been able to feel more like himself for nearly a year.”
Dr. Patel received research funding in 2017 from Taiho, which manufactures trifluridine/tipiracil. He receives no current funding from Taiho and has no additional conflicts of interest. Dr. Goldberg helped represent Taiho in a patent law dispute regarding Lonsurf for which he was paid, but he is no longer paid by the company. Dr. Hincapie-Echeverri is a speaker for Astellas Pharma, which does not manufacture trifluridine/tipiracil or bevacizumab, and he has no additional conflicts of interest.
Urticaria Linked to Higher Cancer Risk, Study Finds
TOPLINE:
which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
- They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
- Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
- This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.
TAKEAWAY:
- For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
- Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
- After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
- The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
- They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
- Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
- This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.
TAKEAWAY:
- For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
- Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
- After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
- The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
- They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
- Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
- This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.
TAKEAWAY:
- For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
- Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
- After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
- The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer Drug Shortages Continue in the US, Survey Finds
Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.
“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.
The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.
“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.
However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.
“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.
In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.
Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).
In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.
In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.
Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.
How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?
Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.
“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.
Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.
The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.
“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.
“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.
The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.
“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.
However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.
“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.
In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.
Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).
In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.
In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.
Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.
How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?
Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.
“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.
Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.
The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.
“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.
“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.
The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.
“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.
However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.
“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.
In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.
Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).
In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.
In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.
Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.
How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?
Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.
“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.
Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.
The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.
“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Tools for Monitoring Multiple Myeloma
Advances in drugs and combinations have revolutionized the landscape in multiple myeloma, thus allowing patients to live much longer, according to Bruno Paiva, PhD, director of flow cytometry and the myeloma laboratory at the University of Navarra Clinic in Pamplona, Spain.
“Much better treatment responses are achieved, with long-term remission, so tools are needed for long-term monitoring. The starting point for monitoring is the monoclonal protein secreted by the myeloma tumor cell, which can be measured in serum and urine. Complete remission is defined when that monoclonal component is not detected with routine laboratory techniques, such as immunofixation,” said Dr. Paiva.
Even if the patient may be in complete remission, minimal residual disease is sometimes detected as myeloma can infiltrate the bone marrow. Techniques for identifying minimal residual disease, like cytometry or next-generation sequencing, can detect bone marrow blood aspirate. “The detection of this minimal residual disease corresponds with a significant reduction in survival,” Dr. Paiva warned.
In addition to these techniques, PET-CT is also used. This imaging tool is “very useful for seeing disease both inside and outside the marrow,” said Dr. Paiva.
“As for the future, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has just approved the use of minimal residual disease as one of the trial objectives. This may allow drugs to reach patients much sooner, instead of waiting for survival data, which takes much longer to obtain,” he said.
Researchers are also learning how to use minimal residual disease and these imaging techniques to individualize the treatment of patients with myeloma. “Furthermore, since some of these techniques are invasive, such as bone marrow ones, we are trying to focus on peripheral blood. This way, monitoring is minimally invasive, much more comfortable for the patient, and more informative because it can be done many times,” said Dr. Paiva.
Dr. Paiva is extending these imaging techniques “to different scenarios, such as the precursor stages of the disease. Our laboratory is especially known for flow cytometry, and we are launching the NoMoreMGUS project, the largest ever conducted in Spain (and perhaps in Europe) on monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. This is a condition that precedes myeloma. We are looking to study 5000 patients in Spain once a year for 5 years, which means analyzing 25,000 samples.
“On the other hand,” he continued, “we are taking some of these developments to other neoplasms, such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia. And we are interested in using all the potential of cytometry not only to measure tumor cells but also to characterize the immune system as another important biomarker in the pathogenesis of the disease. And, for example, to predict infections, which is very important in patients with myeloma.”
This story was translated from El Médico Interactivo, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Advances in drugs and combinations have revolutionized the landscape in multiple myeloma, thus allowing patients to live much longer, according to Bruno Paiva, PhD, director of flow cytometry and the myeloma laboratory at the University of Navarra Clinic in Pamplona, Spain.
“Much better treatment responses are achieved, with long-term remission, so tools are needed for long-term monitoring. The starting point for monitoring is the monoclonal protein secreted by the myeloma tumor cell, which can be measured in serum and urine. Complete remission is defined when that monoclonal component is not detected with routine laboratory techniques, such as immunofixation,” said Dr. Paiva.
Even if the patient may be in complete remission, minimal residual disease is sometimes detected as myeloma can infiltrate the bone marrow. Techniques for identifying minimal residual disease, like cytometry or next-generation sequencing, can detect bone marrow blood aspirate. “The detection of this minimal residual disease corresponds with a significant reduction in survival,” Dr. Paiva warned.
In addition to these techniques, PET-CT is also used. This imaging tool is “very useful for seeing disease both inside and outside the marrow,” said Dr. Paiva.
“As for the future, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has just approved the use of minimal residual disease as one of the trial objectives. This may allow drugs to reach patients much sooner, instead of waiting for survival data, which takes much longer to obtain,” he said.
Researchers are also learning how to use minimal residual disease and these imaging techniques to individualize the treatment of patients with myeloma. “Furthermore, since some of these techniques are invasive, such as bone marrow ones, we are trying to focus on peripheral blood. This way, monitoring is minimally invasive, much more comfortable for the patient, and more informative because it can be done many times,” said Dr. Paiva.
Dr. Paiva is extending these imaging techniques “to different scenarios, such as the precursor stages of the disease. Our laboratory is especially known for flow cytometry, and we are launching the NoMoreMGUS project, the largest ever conducted in Spain (and perhaps in Europe) on monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. This is a condition that precedes myeloma. We are looking to study 5000 patients in Spain once a year for 5 years, which means analyzing 25,000 samples.
“On the other hand,” he continued, “we are taking some of these developments to other neoplasms, such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia. And we are interested in using all the potential of cytometry not only to measure tumor cells but also to characterize the immune system as another important biomarker in the pathogenesis of the disease. And, for example, to predict infections, which is very important in patients with myeloma.”
This story was translated from El Médico Interactivo, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Advances in drugs and combinations have revolutionized the landscape in multiple myeloma, thus allowing patients to live much longer, according to Bruno Paiva, PhD, director of flow cytometry and the myeloma laboratory at the University of Navarra Clinic in Pamplona, Spain.
“Much better treatment responses are achieved, with long-term remission, so tools are needed for long-term monitoring. The starting point for monitoring is the monoclonal protein secreted by the myeloma tumor cell, which can be measured in serum and urine. Complete remission is defined when that monoclonal component is not detected with routine laboratory techniques, such as immunofixation,” said Dr. Paiva.
Even if the patient may be in complete remission, minimal residual disease is sometimes detected as myeloma can infiltrate the bone marrow. Techniques for identifying minimal residual disease, like cytometry or next-generation sequencing, can detect bone marrow blood aspirate. “The detection of this minimal residual disease corresponds with a significant reduction in survival,” Dr. Paiva warned.
In addition to these techniques, PET-CT is also used. This imaging tool is “very useful for seeing disease both inside and outside the marrow,” said Dr. Paiva.
“As for the future, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has just approved the use of minimal residual disease as one of the trial objectives. This may allow drugs to reach patients much sooner, instead of waiting for survival data, which takes much longer to obtain,” he said.
Researchers are also learning how to use minimal residual disease and these imaging techniques to individualize the treatment of patients with myeloma. “Furthermore, since some of these techniques are invasive, such as bone marrow ones, we are trying to focus on peripheral blood. This way, monitoring is minimally invasive, much more comfortable for the patient, and more informative because it can be done many times,” said Dr. Paiva.
Dr. Paiva is extending these imaging techniques “to different scenarios, such as the precursor stages of the disease. Our laboratory is especially known for flow cytometry, and we are launching the NoMoreMGUS project, the largest ever conducted in Spain (and perhaps in Europe) on monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. This is a condition that precedes myeloma. We are looking to study 5000 patients in Spain once a year for 5 years, which means analyzing 25,000 samples.
“On the other hand,” he continued, “we are taking some of these developments to other neoplasms, such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia. And we are interested in using all the potential of cytometry not only to measure tumor cells but also to characterize the immune system as another important biomarker in the pathogenesis of the disease. And, for example, to predict infections, which is very important in patients with myeloma.”
This story was translated from El Médico Interactivo, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
EMA Greenlights Four Drugs for Bladder and Other Cancers
Balversa
The CHMP endorsed the approval of Balversa (erdafitinib, Janssen-Cilag International N.V.), intended for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma, a type of cancer affecting the bladder and urinary system.
As a monotherapy, Balversa is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations. These patients must have previously received at least one line of therapy containing a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor in the unresectable or metastatic treatment setting.
Urothelial carcinoma is the most common form of bladder cancer, the ninth most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide. In 2022, there were approximately 614,000 new cases of bladder cancer and 220,000 deaths globally.
The highest incidence rates in both men and women are found in Southern Europe. Greece had 5800 new cases and 1537 deaths in 2018. Spain has the highest incidence rate in men globally. Since the 1990s, bladder cancer incidence trends have diverged by sex, with rates decreasing or stabilizing in men but increasing among women in certain European countries.
The CHMP recommendation is based on data from cohort 1 of the phase 3 THOR trial, which compared erdafitinib with standard-of-care chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of docetaxel or vinflunine). Cohort 1 included 266 adults with advanced urothelial cancer harboring selected FGFR3 alterations.
All patients had disease progression after one or two prior treatments, at least one of which included a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. The major efficacy endpoints were overall survival, progression free survival, and objective response rate (ORR).
Treatment with erdafitinib reduced the risk for death by 36% compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .005). Median overall survival was 12.1 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 7.8 months in the chemotherapy arm. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 2.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.58; P = .0002). ORR was 35.3% with erdafitinib compared with 8.5% with chemotherapy.
Balversa will be available as 3-mg, 4-mg, and 5-mg film-coated tablets. Erdafitinib, the active substance in Balversa, is an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that suppresses fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinases. Deregulation of FGFR3 signaling is implicated in the pathogenesis of urothelial cancer, and FGFR inhibition has demonstrated antitumor activity in FGFR-expressing cells.
Ordspono
The committee adopted a positive opinion for Ordspono (odronextamab, Regeneron Ireland Designated Activity Company), indicated as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with:
- Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
- Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (rrDLBCL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
The approval recommendation is based on phase 2 trials (NCT02290951, NCT03888105), which demonstrated high ORRs in patients with rrFL and rrDLBCL.
In the DLBCL cohort, a 49% ORR was achieved in heavily pretreated patients who had not received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. A total of 31% achieved a complete response.
The FL cohort showed an 82% response rate in patients with grades I-IIIA disease, with 75% of the overall population achieving a complete response.
Ordspono will be available as a 2-mg, 80-mg, and 320-mg concentrate for solution for infusion. The active substance of Ordspono is odronextamab, a bispecific antibody that targets CD20-expressing B cells and CD3-expressing T cells. By binding to both, it induces T-cell activation and generates a polyclonal cytotoxic T-cell response, leading to the lysis of malignant B cells.
Generics
The panel also adopted positive opinions for two generic cancer medicines.
Enzalutamide Viatris (enzalutamide) is indicated for the treatment of adult men with prostate cancer in several scenarios:
- As monotherapy or with androgen-deprivation therapy for high-risk biochemical recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in men unsuitable for salvage-radiotherapy.
- In combination with androgen-deprivation therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
- For high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
- For metastatic CRPC in men who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic after failure of androgen-deprivation therapy, where chemotherapy is not yet indicated.
- For metastatic CRPC in men whose disease has progressed on or after docetaxel therapy.
Enzalutamide Viatris is a generic version of Xtandi, authorized in the European Union since June 2013. Studies have confirmed the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Enzalutamide Viatris to Xtandi.
Enzalutamide Viatris will be available as 40-mg and 80-mg film-coated tablets. The active substance of Enzalutamide Viatris is enzalutamide, a hormone antagonist that blocks multiple steps in the androgen receptor–signaling pathway.
Nilotinib Accord (nilotinib) is indicated for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).
It is used in adult and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed CML in the chronic phase, adult patients with chronic phase and accelerated phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib, and pediatric patients with CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib.
Nilotinib Accord is a generic of Tasigna, authorized in the European Union since November 2007. Studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Nilotinib Accord to Tasigna.
Nilotinib Accord will be available as 50-mg, 150-mg, and 200-mg hard capsules. The active substance of Nilotinib Accord is nilotinib, an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that targets BCR-ABL kinase and other oncogenic kinases.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Balversa
The CHMP endorsed the approval of Balversa (erdafitinib, Janssen-Cilag International N.V.), intended for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma, a type of cancer affecting the bladder and urinary system.
As a monotherapy, Balversa is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations. These patients must have previously received at least one line of therapy containing a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor in the unresectable or metastatic treatment setting.
Urothelial carcinoma is the most common form of bladder cancer, the ninth most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide. In 2022, there were approximately 614,000 new cases of bladder cancer and 220,000 deaths globally.
The highest incidence rates in both men and women are found in Southern Europe. Greece had 5800 new cases and 1537 deaths in 2018. Spain has the highest incidence rate in men globally. Since the 1990s, bladder cancer incidence trends have diverged by sex, with rates decreasing or stabilizing in men but increasing among women in certain European countries.
The CHMP recommendation is based on data from cohort 1 of the phase 3 THOR trial, which compared erdafitinib with standard-of-care chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of docetaxel or vinflunine). Cohort 1 included 266 adults with advanced urothelial cancer harboring selected FGFR3 alterations.
All patients had disease progression after one or two prior treatments, at least one of which included a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. The major efficacy endpoints were overall survival, progression free survival, and objective response rate (ORR).
Treatment with erdafitinib reduced the risk for death by 36% compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .005). Median overall survival was 12.1 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 7.8 months in the chemotherapy arm. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 2.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.58; P = .0002). ORR was 35.3% with erdafitinib compared with 8.5% with chemotherapy.
Balversa will be available as 3-mg, 4-mg, and 5-mg film-coated tablets. Erdafitinib, the active substance in Balversa, is an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that suppresses fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinases. Deregulation of FGFR3 signaling is implicated in the pathogenesis of urothelial cancer, and FGFR inhibition has demonstrated antitumor activity in FGFR-expressing cells.
Ordspono
The committee adopted a positive opinion for Ordspono (odronextamab, Regeneron Ireland Designated Activity Company), indicated as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with:
- Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
- Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (rrDLBCL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
The approval recommendation is based on phase 2 trials (NCT02290951, NCT03888105), which demonstrated high ORRs in patients with rrFL and rrDLBCL.
In the DLBCL cohort, a 49% ORR was achieved in heavily pretreated patients who had not received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. A total of 31% achieved a complete response.
The FL cohort showed an 82% response rate in patients with grades I-IIIA disease, with 75% of the overall population achieving a complete response.
Ordspono will be available as a 2-mg, 80-mg, and 320-mg concentrate for solution for infusion. The active substance of Ordspono is odronextamab, a bispecific antibody that targets CD20-expressing B cells and CD3-expressing T cells. By binding to both, it induces T-cell activation and generates a polyclonal cytotoxic T-cell response, leading to the lysis of malignant B cells.
Generics
The panel also adopted positive opinions for two generic cancer medicines.
Enzalutamide Viatris (enzalutamide) is indicated for the treatment of adult men with prostate cancer in several scenarios:
- As monotherapy or with androgen-deprivation therapy for high-risk biochemical recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in men unsuitable for salvage-radiotherapy.
- In combination with androgen-deprivation therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
- For high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
- For metastatic CRPC in men who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic after failure of androgen-deprivation therapy, where chemotherapy is not yet indicated.
- For metastatic CRPC in men whose disease has progressed on or after docetaxel therapy.
Enzalutamide Viatris is a generic version of Xtandi, authorized in the European Union since June 2013. Studies have confirmed the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Enzalutamide Viatris to Xtandi.
Enzalutamide Viatris will be available as 40-mg and 80-mg film-coated tablets. The active substance of Enzalutamide Viatris is enzalutamide, a hormone antagonist that blocks multiple steps in the androgen receptor–signaling pathway.
Nilotinib Accord (nilotinib) is indicated for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).
It is used in adult and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed CML in the chronic phase, adult patients with chronic phase and accelerated phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib, and pediatric patients with CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib.
Nilotinib Accord is a generic of Tasigna, authorized in the European Union since November 2007. Studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Nilotinib Accord to Tasigna.
Nilotinib Accord will be available as 50-mg, 150-mg, and 200-mg hard capsules. The active substance of Nilotinib Accord is nilotinib, an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that targets BCR-ABL kinase and other oncogenic kinases.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Balversa
The CHMP endorsed the approval of Balversa (erdafitinib, Janssen-Cilag International N.V.), intended for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma, a type of cancer affecting the bladder and urinary system.
As a monotherapy, Balversa is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations. These patients must have previously received at least one line of therapy containing a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor in the unresectable or metastatic treatment setting.
Urothelial carcinoma is the most common form of bladder cancer, the ninth most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide. In 2022, there were approximately 614,000 new cases of bladder cancer and 220,000 deaths globally.
The highest incidence rates in both men and women are found in Southern Europe. Greece had 5800 new cases and 1537 deaths in 2018. Spain has the highest incidence rate in men globally. Since the 1990s, bladder cancer incidence trends have diverged by sex, with rates decreasing or stabilizing in men but increasing among women in certain European countries.
The CHMP recommendation is based on data from cohort 1 of the phase 3 THOR trial, which compared erdafitinib with standard-of-care chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of docetaxel or vinflunine). Cohort 1 included 266 adults with advanced urothelial cancer harboring selected FGFR3 alterations.
All patients had disease progression after one or two prior treatments, at least one of which included a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. The major efficacy endpoints were overall survival, progression free survival, and objective response rate (ORR).
Treatment with erdafitinib reduced the risk for death by 36% compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .005). Median overall survival was 12.1 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 7.8 months in the chemotherapy arm. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 2.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.58; P = .0002). ORR was 35.3% with erdafitinib compared with 8.5% with chemotherapy.
Balversa will be available as 3-mg, 4-mg, and 5-mg film-coated tablets. Erdafitinib, the active substance in Balversa, is an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that suppresses fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinases. Deregulation of FGFR3 signaling is implicated in the pathogenesis of urothelial cancer, and FGFR inhibition has demonstrated antitumor activity in FGFR-expressing cells.
Ordspono
The committee adopted a positive opinion for Ordspono (odronextamab, Regeneron Ireland Designated Activity Company), indicated as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with:
- Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
- Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (rrDLBCL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
The approval recommendation is based on phase 2 trials (NCT02290951, NCT03888105), which demonstrated high ORRs in patients with rrFL and rrDLBCL.
In the DLBCL cohort, a 49% ORR was achieved in heavily pretreated patients who had not received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. A total of 31% achieved a complete response.
The FL cohort showed an 82% response rate in patients with grades I-IIIA disease, with 75% of the overall population achieving a complete response.
Ordspono will be available as a 2-mg, 80-mg, and 320-mg concentrate for solution for infusion. The active substance of Ordspono is odronextamab, a bispecific antibody that targets CD20-expressing B cells and CD3-expressing T cells. By binding to both, it induces T-cell activation and generates a polyclonal cytotoxic T-cell response, leading to the lysis of malignant B cells.
Generics
The panel also adopted positive opinions for two generic cancer medicines.
Enzalutamide Viatris (enzalutamide) is indicated for the treatment of adult men with prostate cancer in several scenarios:
- As monotherapy or with androgen-deprivation therapy for high-risk biochemical recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in men unsuitable for salvage-radiotherapy.
- In combination with androgen-deprivation therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
- For high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
- For metastatic CRPC in men who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic after failure of androgen-deprivation therapy, where chemotherapy is not yet indicated.
- For metastatic CRPC in men whose disease has progressed on or after docetaxel therapy.
Enzalutamide Viatris is a generic version of Xtandi, authorized in the European Union since June 2013. Studies have confirmed the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Enzalutamide Viatris to Xtandi.
Enzalutamide Viatris will be available as 40-mg and 80-mg film-coated tablets. The active substance of Enzalutamide Viatris is enzalutamide, a hormone antagonist that blocks multiple steps in the androgen receptor–signaling pathway.
Nilotinib Accord (nilotinib) is indicated for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).
It is used in adult and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed CML in the chronic phase, adult patients with chronic phase and accelerated phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib, and pediatric patients with CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib.
Nilotinib Accord is a generic of Tasigna, authorized in the European Union since November 2007. Studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Nilotinib Accord to Tasigna.
Nilotinib Accord will be available as 50-mg, 150-mg, and 200-mg hard capsules. The active substance of Nilotinib Accord is nilotinib, an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that targets BCR-ABL kinase and other oncogenic kinases.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Epcoritamab for R/R Follicular Lymphoma
This marks the second indication for the bispecific CD20-directed CD3 T-cell engager. The agent was first approved in 2023 for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in adults.
The current approval was based on the single-arm EPCORE NHL-1 trial in 127 patients with follicular lymphoma who had received at least two lines of systemic therapy.
After a two step-up dosing regimen, the overall response rate was 82%, with 60% of patients achieving a complete response. At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the median duration of response was not reached. The 12-month duration of response was 68.4%.
Efficacy was similar in the 86 patients who received a three step-up dosing schedule.
Labeling carries a black box warning of cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Adverse events in 20% or more of patients included injection site reactions, cytokine release syndrome, COVID-19 infection, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, pyrexia, cough, and headache.
Decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white blood cell count, and hemoglobin were the most common grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities.
Three step-up dosing is the recommended regimen, with epcoritamab administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dosing is increased by steps to the full 48 mg in cycle 1.
The price is $16,282.52 for 48 mg/0.8 mL, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This marks the second indication for the bispecific CD20-directed CD3 T-cell engager. The agent was first approved in 2023 for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in adults.
The current approval was based on the single-arm EPCORE NHL-1 trial in 127 patients with follicular lymphoma who had received at least two lines of systemic therapy.
After a two step-up dosing regimen, the overall response rate was 82%, with 60% of patients achieving a complete response. At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the median duration of response was not reached. The 12-month duration of response was 68.4%.
Efficacy was similar in the 86 patients who received a three step-up dosing schedule.
Labeling carries a black box warning of cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Adverse events in 20% or more of patients included injection site reactions, cytokine release syndrome, COVID-19 infection, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, pyrexia, cough, and headache.
Decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white blood cell count, and hemoglobin were the most common grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities.
Three step-up dosing is the recommended regimen, with epcoritamab administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dosing is increased by steps to the full 48 mg in cycle 1.
The price is $16,282.52 for 48 mg/0.8 mL, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This marks the second indication for the bispecific CD20-directed CD3 T-cell engager. The agent was first approved in 2023 for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in adults.
The current approval was based on the single-arm EPCORE NHL-1 trial in 127 patients with follicular lymphoma who had received at least two lines of systemic therapy.
After a two step-up dosing regimen, the overall response rate was 82%, with 60% of patients achieving a complete response. At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the median duration of response was not reached. The 12-month duration of response was 68.4%.
Efficacy was similar in the 86 patients who received a three step-up dosing schedule.
Labeling carries a black box warning of cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Adverse events in 20% or more of patients included injection site reactions, cytokine release syndrome, COVID-19 infection, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, pyrexia, cough, and headache.
Decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white blood cell count, and hemoglobin were the most common grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities.
Three step-up dosing is the recommended regimen, with epcoritamab administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dosing is increased by steps to the full 48 mg in cycle 1.
The price is $16,282.52 for 48 mg/0.8 mL, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.