Jennie Smith

A long-term brain imaging study in aging adults showed faster rates of atrophy in certain brain structures to be associated with the risk of developing mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

While some brain atrophy is expected in aging, high levels of atrophy in the white matter and high enlargement in the ventricles are associated with earlier progression from normal cognition to MCI, the study found. The researchers also identified diabetes and atypical levels of amyloid beta protein in the cerebrospinal fluid as risk factors for brain atrophy and MCI.

For their research, published online on JAMA Network Open, Yuto Uchida, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, looked at data for 185 individuals (mean age, 55.4 years; 63% women) who were cognitively normal at baseline and followed for a median of 20 years.

All had been enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study on biomarkers of cognitive decline conducted at Johns Hopkins. Each participant underwent a median of five structural MRI studies during the follow-up period as well as annual cognitive testing. Altogether 60 individuals developed MCI, with eight of them progressing to dementia.

“We hypothesized that annual rates of change of segmental brain volumes would be associated with vascular risk factors among middle-aged and older adults and that these trends would be associated with the progression from normal cognition to MCI,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.
 

Uniquely Long Follow-Up

Most longitudinal studies using structural MRI count a decade or less of follow-up, the study authors noted. This makes it difficult to discern whether the annual rates of change of brain volumes are affected by vascular risk factors or are useful in predicting MCI, they said. Individual differences in brain aging make population-based studies less informative.

This study’s long timeframe allowed for tracking of brain changes “on an individual basis, which facilitates the differentiation between interindividual and intraindividual variations and leads to more accurate estimations of rates of brain atrophy,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.

People with high levels of atrophy in the white matter and enlargement in the ventricles saw earlier progression to MCI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.24-2.49; P = .001). Diabetes mellitus was associated with progression to MCI (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.76; P = .04), as was a low CSF Abeta42:Abeta40 ratio (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; P = .04).

People with both diabetes and an abnormal amyloid profile were even more vulnerable to developing MCI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-1.98; P = .03). This indicated “a synergic association of diabetes and amyloid pathology with MCI progression,” Uchida and colleagues wrote, noting that insulin resistance has been shown to promote the formation of amyloid plaques, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.

The findings also underscore that “white matter volume changes are closely associated with cognitive function in aging, suggesting that white matter degeneration may play a crucial role in cognitive decline,” the authors noted.

Uchida and colleagues acknowledged the modest size and imbalanced sex ratio of their study cohort as potential weaknesses, as well as the fact that the imaging technologies had changed over the course of the study. Most of the participants were White with family histories of dementia.
 

Findings May Lead to Targeted Interventions

In an editorial comment accompanying Uchida and colleagues’ study, Shohei Fujita, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that, while a more diverse population sample would be desirable and should be sought for future studies, the results nonetheless highlight “the potential of long-term longitudinal brain MRI datasets in elucidating the interplay of risk factors underlying cognitive decline and the potential benefits of controlling diabetes to reduce the risk of progression” along the Alzheimer’s disease continuum.

The findings may prove informative, Fujita said, in developing “targeted interventions for those most susceptible to progressive brain changes, potentially combining lifestyle modifications and pharmacological treatments.”

Uchida and colleagues’ study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center, and the National Institutes of Health. The study’s corresponding author, Kenichi Oishi, disclosed funding from the Richman Family Foundation, Richman, the Sharp Family Foundation, and others. Uchida and Fujita reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

A long-term brain imaging study in aging adults showed faster rates of atrophy in certain brain structures to be associated with the risk of developing mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

While some brain atrophy is expected in aging, high levels of atrophy in the white matter and high enlargement in the ventricles are associated with earlier progression from normal cognition to MCI, the study found. The researchers also identified diabetes and atypical levels of amyloid beta protein in the cerebrospinal fluid as risk factors for brain atrophy and MCI.

For their research, published online on JAMA Network Open, Yuto Uchida, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, looked at data for 185 individuals (mean age, 55.4 years; 63% women) who were cognitively normal at baseline and followed for a median of 20 years.

All had been enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study on biomarkers of cognitive decline conducted at Johns Hopkins. Each participant underwent a median of five structural MRI studies during the follow-up period as well as annual cognitive testing. Altogether 60 individuals developed MCI, with eight of them progressing to dementia.

“We hypothesized that annual rates of change of segmental brain volumes would be associated with vascular risk factors among middle-aged and older adults and that these trends would be associated with the progression from normal cognition to MCI,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.
 

Uniquely Long Follow-Up

Most longitudinal studies using structural MRI count a decade or less of follow-up, the study authors noted. This makes it difficult to discern whether the annual rates of change of brain volumes are affected by vascular risk factors or are useful in predicting MCI, they said. Individual differences in brain aging make population-based studies less informative.

This study’s long timeframe allowed for tracking of brain changes “on an individual basis, which facilitates the differentiation between interindividual and intraindividual variations and leads to more accurate estimations of rates of brain atrophy,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.

People with high levels of atrophy in the white matter and enlargement in the ventricles saw earlier progression to MCI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.24-2.49; P = .001). Diabetes mellitus was associated with progression to MCI (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.76; P = .04), as was a low CSF Abeta42:Abeta40 ratio (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; P = .04).

People with both diabetes and an abnormal amyloid profile were even more vulnerable to developing MCI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-1.98; P = .03). This indicated “a synergic association of diabetes and amyloid pathology with MCI progression,” Uchida and colleagues wrote, noting that insulin resistance has been shown to promote the formation of amyloid plaques, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.

The findings also underscore that “white matter volume changes are closely associated with cognitive function in aging, suggesting that white matter degeneration may play a crucial role in cognitive decline,” the authors noted.

Uchida and colleagues acknowledged the modest size and imbalanced sex ratio of their study cohort as potential weaknesses, as well as the fact that the imaging technologies had changed over the course of the study. Most of the participants were White with family histories of dementia.
 

Findings May Lead to Targeted Interventions

In an editorial comment accompanying Uchida and colleagues’ study, Shohei Fujita, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that, while a more diverse population sample would be desirable and should be sought for future studies, the results nonetheless highlight “the potential of long-term longitudinal brain MRI datasets in elucidating the interplay of risk factors underlying cognitive decline and the potential benefits of controlling diabetes to reduce the risk of progression” along the Alzheimer’s disease continuum.

The findings may prove informative, Fujita said, in developing “targeted interventions for those most susceptible to progressive brain changes, potentially combining lifestyle modifications and pharmacological treatments.”

Uchida and colleagues’ study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center, and the National Institutes of Health. The study’s corresponding author, Kenichi Oishi, disclosed funding from the Richman Family Foundation, Richman, the Sharp Family Foundation, and others. Uchida and Fujita reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

A long-term brain imaging study in aging adults showed faster rates of atrophy in certain brain structures to be associated with the risk of developing mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

While some brain atrophy is expected in aging, high levels of atrophy in the white matter and high enlargement in the ventricles are associated with earlier progression from normal cognition to MCI, the study found. The researchers also identified diabetes and atypical levels of amyloid beta protein in the cerebrospinal fluid as risk factors for brain atrophy and MCI.

For their research, published online on JAMA Network Open, Yuto Uchida, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, looked at data for 185 individuals (mean age, 55.4 years; 63% women) who were cognitively normal at baseline and followed for a median of 20 years.

All had been enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study on biomarkers of cognitive decline conducted at Johns Hopkins. Each participant underwent a median of five structural MRI studies during the follow-up period as well as annual cognitive testing. Altogether 60 individuals developed MCI, with eight of them progressing to dementia.

“We hypothesized that annual rates of change of segmental brain volumes would be associated with vascular risk factors among middle-aged and older adults and that these trends would be associated with the progression from normal cognition to MCI,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.
 

Uniquely Long Follow-Up

Most longitudinal studies using structural MRI count a decade or less of follow-up, the study authors noted. This makes it difficult to discern whether the annual rates of change of brain volumes are affected by vascular risk factors or are useful in predicting MCI, they said. Individual differences in brain aging make population-based studies less informative.

This study’s long timeframe allowed for tracking of brain changes “on an individual basis, which facilitates the differentiation between interindividual and intraindividual variations and leads to more accurate estimations of rates of brain atrophy,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.

People with high levels of atrophy in the white matter and enlargement in the ventricles saw earlier progression to MCI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.24-2.49; P = .001). Diabetes mellitus was associated with progression to MCI (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.76; P = .04), as was a low CSF Abeta42:Abeta40 ratio (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; P = .04).

People with both diabetes and an abnormal amyloid profile were even more vulnerable to developing MCI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-1.98; P = .03). This indicated “a synergic association of diabetes and amyloid pathology with MCI progression,” Uchida and colleagues wrote, noting that insulin resistance has been shown to promote the formation of amyloid plaques, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.

The findings also underscore that “white matter volume changes are closely associated with cognitive function in aging, suggesting that white matter degeneration may play a crucial role in cognitive decline,” the authors noted.

Uchida and colleagues acknowledged the modest size and imbalanced sex ratio of their study cohort as potential weaknesses, as well as the fact that the imaging technologies had changed over the course of the study. Most of the participants were White with family histories of dementia.
 

Findings May Lead to Targeted Interventions

In an editorial comment accompanying Uchida and colleagues’ study, Shohei Fujita, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that, while a more diverse population sample would be desirable and should be sought for future studies, the results nonetheless highlight “the potential of long-term longitudinal brain MRI datasets in elucidating the interplay of risk factors underlying cognitive decline and the potential benefits of controlling diabetes to reduce the risk of progression” along the Alzheimer’s disease continuum.

The findings may prove informative, Fujita said, in developing “targeted interventions for those most susceptible to progressive brain changes, potentially combining lifestyle modifications and pharmacological treatments.”

Uchida and colleagues’ study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center, and the National Institutes of Health. The study’s corresponding author, Kenichi Oishi, disclosed funding from the Richman Family Foundation, Richman, the Sharp Family Foundation, and others. Uchida and Fujita reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Early recognition of neurodevelopmental concerns and timely access to services have been shown to result in better outcomes for young children. But not all instruments are of equal value, and new research has sought to identify the most useful among them.

For their research, published online in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, Andrea Burgess, PhD, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and her colleagues looked at two decades’ worth of systematic reviews of screening, assessment, and diagnostic tools used in children younger than 6 years.

Eighty-six clinical reviews and six practice guidelines, all published between 2000 and 2023, were included in the scoping review, which covered nearly 250 different multi-domain and domain- and disorder-specific tools.

The diagnostic instruments were those used to diagnose the most common early childhood disorders, including intellectual disability, global developmental delay, communication disorders, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, cerebral palsy, movement disorders, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Burgess and her colleagues sought to determine which tools had the strongest evidence behind them, noting that comparisons were inherently limited by differences in the tested populations, cutoff values, and other factors.

Burgess and her colleagues identified 67 instruments — about a third of those analyzed in the study — “with good discriminative or predictive validity for the screening and assessment of developmental concerns or disability.” Recommended tools were classified by tool type and by patient age groups.

The reason a tool might not be recommended, Burgess said in an email, was for lack of psychometric testing or published evidence, or because the tool was very narrow in scope (eg, covering only a single aspect of a domain), had a small time window for use, or was too new to have been captured in published systematic reviews.
 

Top Recommendations

Among multi-domain assessment tools, the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, the Battelle Developmental Inventory, and the Mullen Scales of Early Learning all emerged as highly recommended. The top diagnostic screening tool for autism was the revised version of Social Attention and Communication Surveillance. For cerebral palsy, the top-rated diagnostic assessment tools were Prechtl’s Qualitative Assessment of General Movements and the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination.

Ratifying findings by other groups, the researchers determined the Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Third Edition (ASQ-3) to be the best overall multi-domain screening instrument for early childhood development, thanks to its simplicity and ease of use by a wide range of practitioner types. Burgess and her colleagues noted, however, that the ASQ-3 “will not identify all children with developmental concerns and may incorrectly identify others,” and that it may be more accurate in children 2 years or older.
 

Patient Care Setting and Cultural, Socioeconomic Factors Are Key

This news organization spoke to two clinicians working with these and similar tools in the United States. Both said that the care setting can also influence the utility of tools, with cultural and socioeconomic factors playing important roles.

Liz Schwandt, PsyD, an early intervention specialist in Los Angeles, said in an interview that children living in high-risk communities in the United States have a larger burden of developmental delays. But for many families in these communities, accessing care can be complex, which is why well-designed, efficient screening tools like ASQ-3 are especially valuable in practice.

“The reality is you have 10 minutes with a lot of families, and if it’s an emergency, you need to know,” she said. “The ASQ-3 has a very broad age range for this type of instrument and can be used by different practitioner types. The reason it’s successful lies in its parent-centric approach and inherent ease of use. It’s quick, and you can score it using pencil and paper while chatting with the parent, and you can use it for multiple siblings in the space of one appointment.”

With very young children, in whom neurodevelopmental concerns often overlap domains, Schwandt said it can be more important to flag a potential problem early and initiate a nonspecific developmental intervention than wait for results from more precise assessments using more specialized tools. These often require multiple, multi-hour appointments, which can be difficult to attain in lower-resource settings in the United States and can delay care, she said.

Liza Mackintosh, MD, a pediatrician at a federally funded healthcare center in Los Angeles that serves mostly publicly insured families, called validated first-line screening tools “incredibly important.” While rates of developmental screenings in pediatric clinics are increasing, there is still room for improvement, she said.

Mackintosh’s institution does not currently use the ASQ-3 but a different screening tool, called the Survey of Well-Being of Young Children (SWYC), that is embedded into the electronic health record. (The SWYC was not among the tools highlighted in Burgess and colleagues’ review.) Like the ASQ-3, it is short and efficient, she said, and it is used in all children in the recommended age ranges.

“Our visits are on average only 20 minutes,” Mackintosh said. “There’s not enough time for an in-depth developmental assessment. We will flag things such as a speech delay, gross motor delay, or fine motor delay” and refer to early intervention centers for more in-depth developmental assessments as needed, she said.

“The biggest job of pediatricians working in communities that are under-resourced is advocating for those early intervention services,” Mackintosh added. “We really see our job as doing the recommended screening, putting that together with what we’re seeing clinically and on history, and then advocating for the right next step or early intervention. Because sometimes the diagnosis is — I don’t want to say irrelevant, but your treatment plan is still going to be the same. So while I don’t have a formal diagnosis yet, the child definitely needs therapies and we’re still going to get those therapies.”

Burgess and her colleagues stressed in their paper the importance of selecting tools that are culturally appropriate for Indigenous communities in Australia, noting that “inappropriate tools may lead to over- or under-recognition of children with developmental concerns.”

Schwandt and Mackintosh said that the same applies in US settings.

“We’ve done a good job translating screening tools into Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Russian,” Schwandt said. “But some of them assume a way of taking care of children that is not always shared across cultures. The expectations of how children should play and interact with adults can be very different, and there needs to be an understanding of that. Just putting something in Vietnamese doesn’t mean that there are obvious analogues to understanding what the questionnaire is asking.”

Mackintosh concurred. “A lot of times our patients will not do well on screening, even though they’re fine, because they don’t have the exposure to that activity that’s being asked about. So — is the child scribbling with crayons? Is she climbing up a ladder at a playground? In order to be able to do that, you need to have an environment that you are doing it in. The screeners have to really be appropriate for what the child is exposed to. And sometimes our patients just don’t have that exposure.”

Burgess and colleagues’ study was funded by the Australian government and the Merchant Charitable Foundation. The authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Schwandt and Mackintosh disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their comments.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early recognition of neurodevelopmental concerns and timely access to services have been shown to result in better outcomes for young children. But not all instruments are of equal value, and new research has sought to identify the most useful among them.

For their research, published online in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, Andrea Burgess, PhD, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and her colleagues looked at two decades’ worth of systematic reviews of screening, assessment, and diagnostic tools used in children younger than 6 years.

Eighty-six clinical reviews and six practice guidelines, all published between 2000 and 2023, were included in the scoping review, which covered nearly 250 different multi-domain and domain- and disorder-specific tools.

The diagnostic instruments were those used to diagnose the most common early childhood disorders, including intellectual disability, global developmental delay, communication disorders, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, cerebral palsy, movement disorders, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Burgess and her colleagues sought to determine which tools had the strongest evidence behind them, noting that comparisons were inherently limited by differences in the tested populations, cutoff values, and other factors.

Burgess and her colleagues identified 67 instruments — about a third of those analyzed in the study — “with good discriminative or predictive validity for the screening and assessment of developmental concerns or disability.” Recommended tools were classified by tool type and by patient age groups.

The reason a tool might not be recommended, Burgess said in an email, was for lack of psychometric testing or published evidence, or because the tool was very narrow in scope (eg, covering only a single aspect of a domain), had a small time window for use, or was too new to have been captured in published systematic reviews.
 

Top Recommendations

Among multi-domain assessment tools, the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, the Battelle Developmental Inventory, and the Mullen Scales of Early Learning all emerged as highly recommended. The top diagnostic screening tool for autism was the revised version of Social Attention and Communication Surveillance. For cerebral palsy, the top-rated diagnostic assessment tools were Prechtl’s Qualitative Assessment of General Movements and the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination.

Ratifying findings by other groups, the researchers determined the Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Third Edition (ASQ-3) to be the best overall multi-domain screening instrument for early childhood development, thanks to its simplicity and ease of use by a wide range of practitioner types. Burgess and her colleagues noted, however, that the ASQ-3 “will not identify all children with developmental concerns and may incorrectly identify others,” and that it may be more accurate in children 2 years or older.
 

Patient Care Setting and Cultural, Socioeconomic Factors Are Key

This news organization spoke to two clinicians working with these and similar tools in the United States. Both said that the care setting can also influence the utility of tools, with cultural and socioeconomic factors playing important roles.

Liz Schwandt, PsyD, an early intervention specialist in Los Angeles, said in an interview that children living in high-risk communities in the United States have a larger burden of developmental delays. But for many families in these communities, accessing care can be complex, which is why well-designed, efficient screening tools like ASQ-3 are especially valuable in practice.

“The reality is you have 10 minutes with a lot of families, and if it’s an emergency, you need to know,” she said. “The ASQ-3 has a very broad age range for this type of instrument and can be used by different practitioner types. The reason it’s successful lies in its parent-centric approach and inherent ease of use. It’s quick, and you can score it using pencil and paper while chatting with the parent, and you can use it for multiple siblings in the space of one appointment.”

With very young children, in whom neurodevelopmental concerns often overlap domains, Schwandt said it can be more important to flag a potential problem early and initiate a nonspecific developmental intervention than wait for results from more precise assessments using more specialized tools. These often require multiple, multi-hour appointments, which can be difficult to attain in lower-resource settings in the United States and can delay care, she said.

Liza Mackintosh, MD, a pediatrician at a federally funded healthcare center in Los Angeles that serves mostly publicly insured families, called validated first-line screening tools “incredibly important.” While rates of developmental screenings in pediatric clinics are increasing, there is still room for improvement, she said.

Mackintosh’s institution does not currently use the ASQ-3 but a different screening tool, called the Survey of Well-Being of Young Children (SWYC), that is embedded into the electronic health record. (The SWYC was not among the tools highlighted in Burgess and colleagues’ review.) Like the ASQ-3, it is short and efficient, she said, and it is used in all children in the recommended age ranges.

“Our visits are on average only 20 minutes,” Mackintosh said. “There’s not enough time for an in-depth developmental assessment. We will flag things such as a speech delay, gross motor delay, or fine motor delay” and refer to early intervention centers for more in-depth developmental assessments as needed, she said.

“The biggest job of pediatricians working in communities that are under-resourced is advocating for those early intervention services,” Mackintosh added. “We really see our job as doing the recommended screening, putting that together with what we’re seeing clinically and on history, and then advocating for the right next step or early intervention. Because sometimes the diagnosis is — I don’t want to say irrelevant, but your treatment plan is still going to be the same. So while I don’t have a formal diagnosis yet, the child definitely needs therapies and we’re still going to get those therapies.”

Burgess and her colleagues stressed in their paper the importance of selecting tools that are culturally appropriate for Indigenous communities in Australia, noting that “inappropriate tools may lead to over- or under-recognition of children with developmental concerns.”

Schwandt and Mackintosh said that the same applies in US settings.

“We’ve done a good job translating screening tools into Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Russian,” Schwandt said. “But some of them assume a way of taking care of children that is not always shared across cultures. The expectations of how children should play and interact with adults can be very different, and there needs to be an understanding of that. Just putting something in Vietnamese doesn’t mean that there are obvious analogues to understanding what the questionnaire is asking.”

Mackintosh concurred. “A lot of times our patients will not do well on screening, even though they’re fine, because they don’t have the exposure to that activity that’s being asked about. So — is the child scribbling with crayons? Is she climbing up a ladder at a playground? In order to be able to do that, you need to have an environment that you are doing it in. The screeners have to really be appropriate for what the child is exposed to. And sometimes our patients just don’t have that exposure.”

Burgess and colleagues’ study was funded by the Australian government and the Merchant Charitable Foundation. The authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Schwandt and Mackintosh disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their comments.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early recognition of neurodevelopmental concerns and timely access to services have been shown to result in better outcomes for young children. But not all instruments are of equal value, and new research has sought to identify the most useful among them.

For their research, published online in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, Andrea Burgess, PhD, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and her colleagues looked at two decades’ worth of systematic reviews of screening, assessment, and diagnostic tools used in children younger than 6 years.

Eighty-six clinical reviews and six practice guidelines, all published between 2000 and 2023, were included in the scoping review, which covered nearly 250 different multi-domain and domain- and disorder-specific tools.

The diagnostic instruments were those used to diagnose the most common early childhood disorders, including intellectual disability, global developmental delay, communication disorders, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, cerebral palsy, movement disorders, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Burgess and her colleagues sought to determine which tools had the strongest evidence behind them, noting that comparisons were inherently limited by differences in the tested populations, cutoff values, and other factors.

Burgess and her colleagues identified 67 instruments — about a third of those analyzed in the study — “with good discriminative or predictive validity for the screening and assessment of developmental concerns or disability.” Recommended tools were classified by tool type and by patient age groups.

The reason a tool might not be recommended, Burgess said in an email, was for lack of psychometric testing or published evidence, or because the tool was very narrow in scope (eg, covering only a single aspect of a domain), had a small time window for use, or was too new to have been captured in published systematic reviews.
 

Top Recommendations

Among multi-domain assessment tools, the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, the Battelle Developmental Inventory, and the Mullen Scales of Early Learning all emerged as highly recommended. The top diagnostic screening tool for autism was the revised version of Social Attention and Communication Surveillance. For cerebral palsy, the top-rated diagnostic assessment tools were Prechtl’s Qualitative Assessment of General Movements and the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination.

Ratifying findings by other groups, the researchers determined the Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Third Edition (ASQ-3) to be the best overall multi-domain screening instrument for early childhood development, thanks to its simplicity and ease of use by a wide range of practitioner types. Burgess and her colleagues noted, however, that the ASQ-3 “will not identify all children with developmental concerns and may incorrectly identify others,” and that it may be more accurate in children 2 years or older.
 

Patient Care Setting and Cultural, Socioeconomic Factors Are Key

This news organization spoke to two clinicians working with these and similar tools in the United States. Both said that the care setting can also influence the utility of tools, with cultural and socioeconomic factors playing important roles.

Liz Schwandt, PsyD, an early intervention specialist in Los Angeles, said in an interview that children living in high-risk communities in the United States have a larger burden of developmental delays. But for many families in these communities, accessing care can be complex, which is why well-designed, efficient screening tools like ASQ-3 are especially valuable in practice.

“The reality is you have 10 minutes with a lot of families, and if it’s an emergency, you need to know,” she said. “The ASQ-3 has a very broad age range for this type of instrument and can be used by different practitioner types. The reason it’s successful lies in its parent-centric approach and inherent ease of use. It’s quick, and you can score it using pencil and paper while chatting with the parent, and you can use it for multiple siblings in the space of one appointment.”

With very young children, in whom neurodevelopmental concerns often overlap domains, Schwandt said it can be more important to flag a potential problem early and initiate a nonspecific developmental intervention than wait for results from more precise assessments using more specialized tools. These often require multiple, multi-hour appointments, which can be difficult to attain in lower-resource settings in the United States and can delay care, she said.

Liza Mackintosh, MD, a pediatrician at a federally funded healthcare center in Los Angeles that serves mostly publicly insured families, called validated first-line screening tools “incredibly important.” While rates of developmental screenings in pediatric clinics are increasing, there is still room for improvement, she said.

Mackintosh’s institution does not currently use the ASQ-3 but a different screening tool, called the Survey of Well-Being of Young Children (SWYC), that is embedded into the electronic health record. (The SWYC was not among the tools highlighted in Burgess and colleagues’ review.) Like the ASQ-3, it is short and efficient, she said, and it is used in all children in the recommended age ranges.

“Our visits are on average only 20 minutes,” Mackintosh said. “There’s not enough time for an in-depth developmental assessment. We will flag things such as a speech delay, gross motor delay, or fine motor delay” and refer to early intervention centers for more in-depth developmental assessments as needed, she said.

“The biggest job of pediatricians working in communities that are under-resourced is advocating for those early intervention services,” Mackintosh added. “We really see our job as doing the recommended screening, putting that together with what we’re seeing clinically and on history, and then advocating for the right next step or early intervention. Because sometimes the diagnosis is — I don’t want to say irrelevant, but your treatment plan is still going to be the same. So while I don’t have a formal diagnosis yet, the child definitely needs therapies and we’re still going to get those therapies.”

Burgess and her colleagues stressed in their paper the importance of selecting tools that are culturally appropriate for Indigenous communities in Australia, noting that “inappropriate tools may lead to over- or under-recognition of children with developmental concerns.”

Schwandt and Mackintosh said that the same applies in US settings.

“We’ve done a good job translating screening tools into Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Russian,” Schwandt said. “But some of them assume a way of taking care of children that is not always shared across cultures. The expectations of how children should play and interact with adults can be very different, and there needs to be an understanding of that. Just putting something in Vietnamese doesn’t mean that there are obvious analogues to understanding what the questionnaire is asking.”

Mackintosh concurred. “A lot of times our patients will not do well on screening, even though they’re fine, because they don’t have the exposure to that activity that’s being asked about. So — is the child scribbling with crayons? Is she climbing up a ladder at a playground? In order to be able to do that, you need to have an environment that you are doing it in. The screeners have to really be appropriate for what the child is exposed to. And sometimes our patients just don’t have that exposure.”

Burgess and colleagues’ study was funded by the Australian government and the Merchant Charitable Foundation. The authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Schwandt and Mackintosh disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their comments.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, or CIDP, is a rare immune-mediated nerve disorder characterized by progressive weakness and sensory impairment in the arms and legs, the result of an autoimmune attack on myelin.

Though some clustering of cases may occur in families, and susceptibility genes have been found, it is not considered a genetic disease. It can strike patients of either sex at any age, though most cases will occur in or after midlife.

Because its symptoms can overlap with a broad range of neuropathies, CIDP is notoriously complex to diagnose, relying on nerve conduction studies and careful clinical assessment rather than any definitive blood biomarker. Complicating matters further, CIDP has several variants whose symptoms differ from classical presentations.

Many patients who do not have CIDP end up being treated for it, and many CIDP patients experience delays to diagnosis and treatment that can potentially result in greater nerve damage and worse outcomes.

The good news, CIDP experts say, is that the last few years have seen important advances in diagnosis and treatment – including comprehensive new clinical guidelines and the June 2024 approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a new treatment, efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc (Vyvgart, argenx). This antibody fragment represents the first non-steroid, non-immunoglobulin option for CIDP.

Despite the difficulties of recruiting patients with a tough-to-confirm disease that affects between 2 and 9 of every 100,000 people, according to the GPS-CIDP Foundation clinical trials have been successfully carried out in CIDP, and new ones continue to recruit. The experimental therapies being explored are based on a wide range of proposed disease pathways.

courtesy University of Minnesota

“It’s a very exciting time,” said Jeffrey Allen, MD, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, one of three CIDP experts who spoke about this challenging but treatable syndrome, its diagnosis and management, and the research questions that they hope to see answered.
 

Refining Diagnosis

In classical or typical CIDP, which accounts for most cases, patients present with progressive weakness and numbness that affects the arms and legs symmetrically, with the weakness being both proximal and distal. The disease usually evolves over a period of months, which helps distinguish it from Gullain-Barré syndrome, whose onset is more sudden and progression is less than 4 weeks.

CIDP was first described in the 1970s, and since that time more than a dozen sets of diagnostic criteria have been published. Starting about a decade ago, Dr. Allen and neurologist Richard Lewis, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, helped launch an effort to improve them.

“Experts in the field who were seeing patients with CIDP recognized that a lot of referrals coming to them were of people who actually didn’t have it, or they had the disease and were treated for it but didn’t need to be on treatment, or their treatment was very unconventional,” Dr. Allen said. “We wanted to try to put some data behind that.” In 2015 Dr. Allen and Dr. Lewis published a paper that found that nearly half of patients referred with a diagnosis of CIDP failed to meet basic diagnostic requirements.

courtesy Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Erroneous interpretation of nerve conduction studies “was a significant factor” contributing to the misdiagnoses, Dr. Lewis said. And another major problem was that patients’ response to standard treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins (current treatments have also come to include subcutaneous immunoglobulins) was not being measured objectively. Instead of evaluating patients using grip strength, walking tests, or other objective instruments, clinicians asked patients whether they felt better. “The problem is that IVIg makes people feel good,” Dr. Lewis said, “possibly by reducing normal inflammatory agents in the body.”

The 2015 paper caught the attention of neurologists and neuromuscular specialists worldwide, who reported similar problems with misdiagnosis. “And from there we did other work to try to dissect out what the more specific issues are,” Dr. Allen said. “The electrophysiology was a big one.”

courtesy University of Buffalo

Neurologist Nicholas Silvestri, MD, of the University at Buffalo in New York, one of the centers of excellence recognized by the CIDP-GBS Foundation, affirmed that nerve conduction studies, which essential to diagnosing CIDP, “are not as objective as we think they are. They’re very prone to user error and overinterpretation error. If they’re not performed appropriately, things can look like CIDP when they’re not. Very common forms of neuropathy, like diabetic neuropathy, can be misinterpreted as CIDP.”
 

The Challenge of Variants

After their 2015 paper on diagnostic pitfalls, Dr. Lewis and Dr. Allen, along with colleagues in the United States and Europe, started looking deeper into outcome measures and how to better follow and track patients with CIDP. In 2021 they helped create the first comprehensive clinical guidelines for CIDP in over a decade.

Much of their effort focused on atypical presentations, or what are now called variants, of CIDP — people with predominantly distal disease, asymmetrical symptomology, focal symptoms, or exclusively motor or sensory symptoms. With classical CIDP, “we don’t really have a problem with misdiagnosis,” Dr. Lewis said. With variants, however, misdiagnoses are extremely common. The 2021 guidelines try to address this, proposing differential diagnoses for each of the variants and ways to investigate them.

The guidelines also removed a subgroup of patients previously included as having CIDP. These patients, who comprise about 10% of cases, have antibodies to components of the Node of Ranvier, part of the axonal membrane, and the paranodal myelin. The autoimmune nodopathies do not respond to treatment with immunoglobulins or steroids in the way classical CIDP and its variants do. However, many patients have seen success with the immunotherapy rituximab.

“CIDP is a syndrome, not one disease,” Dr. Lewis said. “So it has been difficult to get guidelines or criteria that are sensitive to all the different forms of the disease, and yet specific for the disease and not overlapping. The nodopathies were pulled out because they don’t respond to usual treatments for CIDP. Hopefully over the years we’ll have even more specific diagnoses and can split out more patients.”
 

A Need for Better Biomarkers

With the neuromuscular autoimmune disease myasthenia gravis, 85% of patients have antibodies against the muscle acetylcholine receptor (AChR). Another 6% will have antibodies against muscle-specific kinase (MuSK).

Antibody profiles have long guided treatment decisions in myasthenia gravis, with AChR-positive patients responding to corticosteroids, IVIg, complement inhibitors, and other agents. MuSK-positive myasthenia gravis patients, similar to people with autoimmune nodopathies, respond poorly to IVIg but can have dramatic responses when treated with B cell–depleting therapies like rituximab.

Antibodies to nodal proteins neurofascin-155 and contactin-1 have been shown to be involved with the nodopathies. Assays for these are now commercially available, and Dr. Allen recommended that clinicians seek them for patients with a more rapid course, with tremor and ataxia, or who do not respond to standard CIDP treatments.

Still, no dominant autoantibody has been identified for the majority of presentations, including classical presentations. “I suspect it’s a heterogeneous group of multiple antibodies causing the disease,” Dr. Silvestri said. “That may explain to an extent the different manifestations and the different responses to treatment.”

Dr. Lewis said he thinks that, while more antibodies are likely to be discovered in the coming years, “we’re still identifying fewer than 20% of CIDP patients by specific antibodies, so we have a long way to go.”
 

Promising Trial Landscape

“CIDP is a challenging disease to study because of the diagnostic issues,” Dr. Allen said. “We know that a [nontrivial] percentage of patients ... can go into a drug-free remission. They actually don’t need treatment during that time. We don’t have any way to measure that. And if you put them in a clinical trial, it’s difficult to measure changes in the trial if they didn’t need the drug in the first place.”

In the global ADHERE trail, which looked at efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc in CIDP patients, the investigators, led by Dr. Allen and Dr. Lewis, challenged patients to be off therapy for 12 weeks and allowed only those with active disease to enroll. They also used an adjudication panel of CIDP experts to review the records of each patient to assure patients had CIDP.

If two experts on the panel independently agreed that it was CIDP, Dr. Lewis said, then patients were eligible for enrollment. “If they both said they weren’t CIDP, they were not eligible. And if there was an argument between the two of them, then a third adjudicator would come in.”

About half of patients screened (n = 221) ended up included, and adjudication panels are now used in most CIDP trials.

The trial saw a positive outcome for efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc, an antibody fragment that targets neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), as a way to reduce to levels of pathogenic IgG autoantibodies. (The treatment was previously approved for myasthenia gravis.) The fact that two thirds of participants in the trial responded pointed to the likelihood that most CIDP patients have an IgG-related disease, Dr. Lewis said.

Different types of therapies are now being investigated in CIDP, among them other FcRn-inhibiting drugs and drugs inhibiting complement. Results from these trials may shed more light on the pathophysiology of the disease, which Dr. Silvestri said would be welcome.

“If I can test for antibodies, I can make a more timely diagnosis,” he said. “I’m assuming that some people with CIDP have non–antibody-driven disease. And in those cases, I want to avoid using drugs like Vyvgart, which are targeting antibodies. I want to give them a different therapy.”

Management: A Delicate Dance

Since the 1990s, the standard of care for CIDP has been IVIg and steroids. Newer subcutaneous immunoglobulin products, which take less time to administer, may be more convenient for patients than traditional IVIg and mitigate some concerning side effects.

Efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc now offers an entirely different option that, while too new for clinicians to have much experience with in CIDP, represents further convenience for patients, with dosing in one 90-second subcutaneous injection per week.

In general, the sooner people are diagnosed and on therapy, the better they are likely to do, with fewer risks of irreversible axonal loss and disability. Referring to CIDP centers of excellence can help speed a definitive diagnosis.

Some patients will see a complete or near-complete recovery, while others will not. “It’s important to be up front with patients about what the benefit of treatments are, what are the expectations of treatment, what we can potentially get back, and what’s unlikely to come back,” Dr. Allen said. “We know that irreversible deficits are not uncommon in folks with CIDP. Part of that is driven by how severe their disease is or how long they’ve had it.”

Good CIDP management, according to the 2021 guidelines, involves making periodic dose reductions or withdrawing therapies on a trial basis, because people can and do experience remission. “We don’t have any test that tells us if somebody needs treatment or not. So this is the best we can do right now,” Dr. Allen said.

This process can be anxiety provoking for patients. “In my practice, there are no surprises,” he said. “We don’t typically say, ‘we’re going to stop your treatment today.’ It’s a discussion with a lead up that’s usually many months long.”

Management of CIDP also requires discussions to elicit when and whether worsening is occurring, along with a clear sense, by both patient and clinician, of what constitutes worsening.

Serial nerve conduction studies are not very useful, Dr. Lewis said, but objective disability measures are and should be more broadly adopted. These include the Medical Research Council sumscore, a test of 12 muscles that can determine weakness; a hand grip test; and functional disability scales such as Inflammatory Rasch Overall Disability Scale and Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment scale. All are quick to administer in the office, and some can be done by the patient at home, providing the clinician useful information between visits.

“We could do a better job with educating [clinicians] on the value of different outcome measures that can really quantify disease activity,” Dr. Allen said, and pointed to the GBS-CIDP Foundation centers of excellence, which exist in most regions of the United States, as an outstanding resource for anyone wanting to know more.

“The centers are really, really helpful when you’re trying to work through some of these issues,” he said.

Suggested Reading

Allen JA and Lewis RA. Neurology. 2015 Aug 11;85(6):498-504. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001833.

Allen J et al. Neurology. 2024;102(17_supplement_1). doi: 10.1212/WNL-.0000000000206324.

Van den Bergh PYK et al. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2021 Sep;26(3):242-268. doi: 10.1111/jns.12455.

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, or CIDP, is a rare immune-mediated nerve disorder characterized by progressive weakness and sensory impairment in the arms and legs, the result of an autoimmune attack on myelin.

Though some clustering of cases may occur in families, and susceptibility genes have been found, it is not considered a genetic disease. It can strike patients of either sex at any age, though most cases will occur in or after midlife.

Because its symptoms can overlap with a broad range of neuropathies, CIDP is notoriously complex to diagnose, relying on nerve conduction studies and careful clinical assessment rather than any definitive blood biomarker. Complicating matters further, CIDP has several variants whose symptoms differ from classical presentations.

Many patients who do not have CIDP end up being treated for it, and many CIDP patients experience delays to diagnosis and treatment that can potentially result in greater nerve damage and worse outcomes.

The good news, CIDP experts say, is that the last few years have seen important advances in diagnosis and treatment – including comprehensive new clinical guidelines and the June 2024 approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a new treatment, efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc (Vyvgart, argenx). This antibody fragment represents the first non-steroid, non-immunoglobulin option for CIDP.

Despite the difficulties of recruiting patients with a tough-to-confirm disease that affects between 2 and 9 of every 100,000 people, according to the GPS-CIDP Foundation clinical trials have been successfully carried out in CIDP, and new ones continue to recruit. The experimental therapies being explored are based on a wide range of proposed disease pathways.

courtesy University of Minnesota

“It’s a very exciting time,” said Jeffrey Allen, MD, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, one of three CIDP experts who spoke about this challenging but treatable syndrome, its diagnosis and management, and the research questions that they hope to see answered.
 

Refining Diagnosis

In classical or typical CIDP, which accounts for most cases, patients present with progressive weakness and numbness that affects the arms and legs symmetrically, with the weakness being both proximal and distal. The disease usually evolves over a period of months, which helps distinguish it from Gullain-Barré syndrome, whose onset is more sudden and progression is less than 4 weeks.

CIDP was first described in the 1970s, and since that time more than a dozen sets of diagnostic criteria have been published. Starting about a decade ago, Dr. Allen and neurologist Richard Lewis, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, helped launch an effort to improve them.

“Experts in the field who were seeing patients with CIDP recognized that a lot of referrals coming to them were of people who actually didn’t have it, or they had the disease and were treated for it but didn’t need to be on treatment, or their treatment was very unconventional,” Dr. Allen said. “We wanted to try to put some data behind that.” In 2015 Dr. Allen and Dr. Lewis published a paper that found that nearly half of patients referred with a diagnosis of CIDP failed to meet basic diagnostic requirements.

courtesy Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Erroneous interpretation of nerve conduction studies “was a significant factor” contributing to the misdiagnoses, Dr. Lewis said. And another major problem was that patients’ response to standard treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins (current treatments have also come to include subcutaneous immunoglobulins) was not being measured objectively. Instead of evaluating patients using grip strength, walking tests, or other objective instruments, clinicians asked patients whether they felt better. “The problem is that IVIg makes people feel good,” Dr. Lewis said, “possibly by reducing normal inflammatory agents in the body.”

The 2015 paper caught the attention of neurologists and neuromuscular specialists worldwide, who reported similar problems with misdiagnosis. “And from there we did other work to try to dissect out what the more specific issues are,” Dr. Allen said. “The electrophysiology was a big one.”

courtesy University of Buffalo

Neurologist Nicholas Silvestri, MD, of the University at Buffalo in New York, one of the centers of excellence recognized by the CIDP-GBS Foundation, affirmed that nerve conduction studies, which essential to diagnosing CIDP, “are not as objective as we think they are. They’re very prone to user error and overinterpretation error. If they’re not performed appropriately, things can look like CIDP when they’re not. Very common forms of neuropathy, like diabetic neuropathy, can be misinterpreted as CIDP.”
 

The Challenge of Variants

After their 2015 paper on diagnostic pitfalls, Dr. Lewis and Dr. Allen, along with colleagues in the United States and Europe, started looking deeper into outcome measures and how to better follow and track patients with CIDP. In 2021 they helped create the first comprehensive clinical guidelines for CIDP in over a decade.

Much of their effort focused on atypical presentations, or what are now called variants, of CIDP — people with predominantly distal disease, asymmetrical symptomology, focal symptoms, or exclusively motor or sensory symptoms. With classical CIDP, “we don’t really have a problem with misdiagnosis,” Dr. Lewis said. With variants, however, misdiagnoses are extremely common. The 2021 guidelines try to address this, proposing differential diagnoses for each of the variants and ways to investigate them.

The guidelines also removed a subgroup of patients previously included as having CIDP. These patients, who comprise about 10% of cases, have antibodies to components of the Node of Ranvier, part of the axonal membrane, and the paranodal myelin. The autoimmune nodopathies do not respond to treatment with immunoglobulins or steroids in the way classical CIDP and its variants do. However, many patients have seen success with the immunotherapy rituximab.

“CIDP is a syndrome, not one disease,” Dr. Lewis said. “So it has been difficult to get guidelines or criteria that are sensitive to all the different forms of the disease, and yet specific for the disease and not overlapping. The nodopathies were pulled out because they don’t respond to usual treatments for CIDP. Hopefully over the years we’ll have even more specific diagnoses and can split out more patients.”
 

A Need for Better Biomarkers

With the neuromuscular autoimmune disease myasthenia gravis, 85% of patients have antibodies against the muscle acetylcholine receptor (AChR). Another 6% will have antibodies against muscle-specific kinase (MuSK).

Antibody profiles have long guided treatment decisions in myasthenia gravis, with AChR-positive patients responding to corticosteroids, IVIg, complement inhibitors, and other agents. MuSK-positive myasthenia gravis patients, similar to people with autoimmune nodopathies, respond poorly to IVIg but can have dramatic responses when treated with B cell–depleting therapies like rituximab.

Antibodies to nodal proteins neurofascin-155 and contactin-1 have been shown to be involved with the nodopathies. Assays for these are now commercially available, and Dr. Allen recommended that clinicians seek them for patients with a more rapid course, with tremor and ataxia, or who do not respond to standard CIDP treatments.

Still, no dominant autoantibody has been identified for the majority of presentations, including classical presentations. “I suspect it’s a heterogeneous group of multiple antibodies causing the disease,” Dr. Silvestri said. “That may explain to an extent the different manifestations and the different responses to treatment.”

Dr. Lewis said he thinks that, while more antibodies are likely to be discovered in the coming years, “we’re still identifying fewer than 20% of CIDP patients by specific antibodies, so we have a long way to go.”
 

Promising Trial Landscape

“CIDP is a challenging disease to study because of the diagnostic issues,” Dr. Allen said. “We know that a [nontrivial] percentage of patients ... can go into a drug-free remission. They actually don’t need treatment during that time. We don’t have any way to measure that. And if you put them in a clinical trial, it’s difficult to measure changes in the trial if they didn’t need the drug in the first place.”

In the global ADHERE trail, which looked at efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc in CIDP patients, the investigators, led by Dr. Allen and Dr. Lewis, challenged patients to be off therapy for 12 weeks and allowed only those with active disease to enroll. They also used an adjudication panel of CIDP experts to review the records of each patient to assure patients had CIDP.

If two experts on the panel independently agreed that it was CIDP, Dr. Lewis said, then patients were eligible for enrollment. “If they both said they weren’t CIDP, they were not eligible. And if there was an argument between the two of them, then a third adjudicator would come in.”

About half of patients screened (n = 221) ended up included, and adjudication panels are now used in most CIDP trials.

The trial saw a positive outcome for efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc, an antibody fragment that targets neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), as a way to reduce to levels of pathogenic IgG autoantibodies. (The treatment was previously approved for myasthenia gravis.) The fact that two thirds of participants in the trial responded pointed to the likelihood that most CIDP patients have an IgG-related disease, Dr. Lewis said.

Different types of therapies are now being investigated in CIDP, among them other FcRn-inhibiting drugs and drugs inhibiting complement. Results from these trials may shed more light on the pathophysiology of the disease, which Dr. Silvestri said would be welcome.

“If I can test for antibodies, I can make a more timely diagnosis,” he said. “I’m assuming that some people with CIDP have non–antibody-driven disease. And in those cases, I want to avoid using drugs like Vyvgart, which are targeting antibodies. I want to give them a different therapy.”

Management: A Delicate Dance

Since the 1990s, the standard of care for CIDP has been IVIg and steroids. Newer subcutaneous immunoglobulin products, which take less time to administer, may be more convenient for patients than traditional IVIg and mitigate some concerning side effects.

Efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc now offers an entirely different option that, while too new for clinicians to have much experience with in CIDP, represents further convenience for patients, with dosing in one 90-second subcutaneous injection per week.

In general, the sooner people are diagnosed and on therapy, the better they are likely to do, with fewer risks of irreversible axonal loss and disability. Referring to CIDP centers of excellence can help speed a definitive diagnosis.

Some patients will see a complete or near-complete recovery, while others will not. “It’s important to be up front with patients about what the benefit of treatments are, what are the expectations of treatment, what we can potentially get back, and what’s unlikely to come back,” Dr. Allen said. “We know that irreversible deficits are not uncommon in folks with CIDP. Part of that is driven by how severe their disease is or how long they’ve had it.”

Good CIDP management, according to the 2021 guidelines, involves making periodic dose reductions or withdrawing therapies on a trial basis, because people can and do experience remission. “We don’t have any test that tells us if somebody needs treatment or not. So this is the best we can do right now,” Dr. Allen said.

This process can be anxiety provoking for patients. “In my practice, there are no surprises,” he said. “We don’t typically say, ‘we’re going to stop your treatment today.’ It’s a discussion with a lead up that’s usually many months long.”

Management of CIDP also requires discussions to elicit when and whether worsening is occurring, along with a clear sense, by both patient and clinician, of what constitutes worsening.

Serial nerve conduction studies are not very useful, Dr. Lewis said, but objective disability measures are and should be more broadly adopted. These include the Medical Research Council sumscore, a test of 12 muscles that can determine weakness; a hand grip test; and functional disability scales such as Inflammatory Rasch Overall Disability Scale and Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment scale. All are quick to administer in the office, and some can be done by the patient at home, providing the clinician useful information between visits.

“We could do a better job with educating [clinicians] on the value of different outcome measures that can really quantify disease activity,” Dr. Allen said, and pointed to the GBS-CIDP Foundation centers of excellence, which exist in most regions of the United States, as an outstanding resource for anyone wanting to know more.

“The centers are really, really helpful when you’re trying to work through some of these issues,” he said.

Suggested Reading

Allen JA and Lewis RA. Neurology. 2015 Aug 11;85(6):498-504. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001833.

Allen J et al. Neurology. 2024;102(17_supplement_1). doi: 10.1212/WNL-.0000000000206324.

Van den Bergh PYK et al. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2021 Sep;26(3):242-268. doi: 10.1111/jns.12455.

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, or CIDP, is a rare immune-mediated nerve disorder characterized by progressive weakness and sensory impairment in the arms and legs, the result of an autoimmune attack on myelin.

Though some clustering of cases may occur in families, and susceptibility genes have been found, it is not considered a genetic disease. It can strike patients of either sex at any age, though most cases will occur in or after midlife.

Because its symptoms can overlap with a broad range of neuropathies, CIDP is notoriously complex to diagnose, relying on nerve conduction studies and careful clinical assessment rather than any definitive blood biomarker. Complicating matters further, CIDP has several variants whose symptoms differ from classical presentations.

Many patients who do not have CIDP end up being treated for it, and many CIDP patients experience delays to diagnosis and treatment that can potentially result in greater nerve damage and worse outcomes.

The good news, CIDP experts say, is that the last few years have seen important advances in diagnosis and treatment – including comprehensive new clinical guidelines and the June 2024 approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a new treatment, efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc (Vyvgart, argenx). This antibody fragment represents the first non-steroid, non-immunoglobulin option for CIDP.

Despite the difficulties of recruiting patients with a tough-to-confirm disease that affects between 2 and 9 of every 100,000 people, according to the GPS-CIDP Foundation clinical trials have been successfully carried out in CIDP, and new ones continue to recruit. The experimental therapies being explored are based on a wide range of proposed disease pathways.

courtesy University of Minnesota

“It’s a very exciting time,” said Jeffrey Allen, MD, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, one of three CIDP experts who spoke about this challenging but treatable syndrome, its diagnosis and management, and the research questions that they hope to see answered.
 

Refining Diagnosis

In classical or typical CIDP, which accounts for most cases, patients present with progressive weakness and numbness that affects the arms and legs symmetrically, with the weakness being both proximal and distal. The disease usually evolves over a period of months, which helps distinguish it from Gullain-Barré syndrome, whose onset is more sudden and progression is less than 4 weeks.

CIDP was first described in the 1970s, and since that time more than a dozen sets of diagnostic criteria have been published. Starting about a decade ago, Dr. Allen and neurologist Richard Lewis, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, helped launch an effort to improve them.

“Experts in the field who were seeing patients with CIDP recognized that a lot of referrals coming to them were of people who actually didn’t have it, or they had the disease and were treated for it but didn’t need to be on treatment, or their treatment was very unconventional,” Dr. Allen said. “We wanted to try to put some data behind that.” In 2015 Dr. Allen and Dr. Lewis published a paper that found that nearly half of patients referred with a diagnosis of CIDP failed to meet basic diagnostic requirements.

courtesy Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Erroneous interpretation of nerve conduction studies “was a significant factor” contributing to the misdiagnoses, Dr. Lewis said. And another major problem was that patients’ response to standard treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins (current treatments have also come to include subcutaneous immunoglobulins) was not being measured objectively. Instead of evaluating patients using grip strength, walking tests, or other objective instruments, clinicians asked patients whether they felt better. “The problem is that IVIg makes people feel good,” Dr. Lewis said, “possibly by reducing normal inflammatory agents in the body.”

The 2015 paper caught the attention of neurologists and neuromuscular specialists worldwide, who reported similar problems with misdiagnosis. “And from there we did other work to try to dissect out what the more specific issues are,” Dr. Allen said. “The electrophysiology was a big one.”

courtesy University of Buffalo

Neurologist Nicholas Silvestri, MD, of the University at Buffalo in New York, one of the centers of excellence recognized by the CIDP-GBS Foundation, affirmed that nerve conduction studies, which essential to diagnosing CIDP, “are not as objective as we think they are. They’re very prone to user error and overinterpretation error. If they’re not performed appropriately, things can look like CIDP when they’re not. Very common forms of neuropathy, like diabetic neuropathy, can be misinterpreted as CIDP.”
 

The Challenge of Variants

After their 2015 paper on diagnostic pitfalls, Dr. Lewis and Dr. Allen, along with colleagues in the United States and Europe, started looking deeper into outcome measures and how to better follow and track patients with CIDP. In 2021 they helped create the first comprehensive clinical guidelines for CIDP in over a decade.

Much of their effort focused on atypical presentations, or what are now called variants, of CIDP — people with predominantly distal disease, asymmetrical symptomology, focal symptoms, or exclusively motor or sensory symptoms. With classical CIDP, “we don’t really have a problem with misdiagnosis,” Dr. Lewis said. With variants, however, misdiagnoses are extremely common. The 2021 guidelines try to address this, proposing differential diagnoses for each of the variants and ways to investigate them.

The guidelines also removed a subgroup of patients previously included as having CIDP. These patients, who comprise about 10% of cases, have antibodies to components of the Node of Ranvier, part of the axonal membrane, and the paranodal myelin. The autoimmune nodopathies do not respond to treatment with immunoglobulins or steroids in the way classical CIDP and its variants do. However, many patients have seen success with the immunotherapy rituximab.

“CIDP is a syndrome, not one disease,” Dr. Lewis said. “So it has been difficult to get guidelines or criteria that are sensitive to all the different forms of the disease, and yet specific for the disease and not overlapping. The nodopathies were pulled out because they don’t respond to usual treatments for CIDP. Hopefully over the years we’ll have even more specific diagnoses and can split out more patients.”
 

A Need for Better Biomarkers

With the neuromuscular autoimmune disease myasthenia gravis, 85% of patients have antibodies against the muscle acetylcholine receptor (AChR). Another 6% will have antibodies against muscle-specific kinase (MuSK).

Antibody profiles have long guided treatment decisions in myasthenia gravis, with AChR-positive patients responding to corticosteroids, IVIg, complement inhibitors, and other agents. MuSK-positive myasthenia gravis patients, similar to people with autoimmune nodopathies, respond poorly to IVIg but can have dramatic responses when treated with B cell–depleting therapies like rituximab.

Antibodies to nodal proteins neurofascin-155 and contactin-1 have been shown to be involved with the nodopathies. Assays for these are now commercially available, and Dr. Allen recommended that clinicians seek them for patients with a more rapid course, with tremor and ataxia, or who do not respond to standard CIDP treatments.

Still, no dominant autoantibody has been identified for the majority of presentations, including classical presentations. “I suspect it’s a heterogeneous group of multiple antibodies causing the disease,” Dr. Silvestri said. “That may explain to an extent the different manifestations and the different responses to treatment.”

Dr. Lewis said he thinks that, while more antibodies are likely to be discovered in the coming years, “we’re still identifying fewer than 20% of CIDP patients by specific antibodies, so we have a long way to go.”
 

Promising Trial Landscape

“CIDP is a challenging disease to study because of the diagnostic issues,” Dr. Allen said. “We know that a [nontrivial] percentage of patients ... can go into a drug-free remission. They actually don’t need treatment during that time. We don’t have any way to measure that. And if you put them in a clinical trial, it’s difficult to measure changes in the trial if they didn’t need the drug in the first place.”

In the global ADHERE trail, which looked at efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc in CIDP patients, the investigators, led by Dr. Allen and Dr. Lewis, challenged patients to be off therapy for 12 weeks and allowed only those with active disease to enroll. They also used an adjudication panel of CIDP experts to review the records of each patient to assure patients had CIDP.

If two experts on the panel independently agreed that it was CIDP, Dr. Lewis said, then patients were eligible for enrollment. “If they both said they weren’t CIDP, they were not eligible. And if there was an argument between the two of them, then a third adjudicator would come in.”

About half of patients screened (n = 221) ended up included, and adjudication panels are now used in most CIDP trials.

The trial saw a positive outcome for efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc, an antibody fragment that targets neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), as a way to reduce to levels of pathogenic IgG autoantibodies. (The treatment was previously approved for myasthenia gravis.) The fact that two thirds of participants in the trial responded pointed to the likelihood that most CIDP patients have an IgG-related disease, Dr. Lewis said.

Different types of therapies are now being investigated in CIDP, among them other FcRn-inhibiting drugs and drugs inhibiting complement. Results from these trials may shed more light on the pathophysiology of the disease, which Dr. Silvestri said would be welcome.

“If I can test for antibodies, I can make a more timely diagnosis,” he said. “I’m assuming that some people with CIDP have non–antibody-driven disease. And in those cases, I want to avoid using drugs like Vyvgart, which are targeting antibodies. I want to give them a different therapy.”

Management: A Delicate Dance

Since the 1990s, the standard of care for CIDP has been IVIg and steroids. Newer subcutaneous immunoglobulin products, which take less time to administer, may be more convenient for patients than traditional IVIg and mitigate some concerning side effects.

Efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc now offers an entirely different option that, while too new for clinicians to have much experience with in CIDP, represents further convenience for patients, with dosing in one 90-second subcutaneous injection per week.

In general, the sooner people are diagnosed and on therapy, the better they are likely to do, with fewer risks of irreversible axonal loss and disability. Referring to CIDP centers of excellence can help speed a definitive diagnosis.

Some patients will see a complete or near-complete recovery, while others will not. “It’s important to be up front with patients about what the benefit of treatments are, what are the expectations of treatment, what we can potentially get back, and what’s unlikely to come back,” Dr. Allen said. “We know that irreversible deficits are not uncommon in folks with CIDP. Part of that is driven by how severe their disease is or how long they’ve had it.”

Good CIDP management, according to the 2021 guidelines, involves making periodic dose reductions or withdrawing therapies on a trial basis, because people can and do experience remission. “We don’t have any test that tells us if somebody needs treatment or not. So this is the best we can do right now,” Dr. Allen said.

This process can be anxiety provoking for patients. “In my practice, there are no surprises,” he said. “We don’t typically say, ‘we’re going to stop your treatment today.’ It’s a discussion with a lead up that’s usually many months long.”

Management of CIDP also requires discussions to elicit when and whether worsening is occurring, along with a clear sense, by both patient and clinician, of what constitutes worsening.

Serial nerve conduction studies are not very useful, Dr. Lewis said, but objective disability measures are and should be more broadly adopted. These include the Medical Research Council sumscore, a test of 12 muscles that can determine weakness; a hand grip test; and functional disability scales such as Inflammatory Rasch Overall Disability Scale and Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment scale. All are quick to administer in the office, and some can be done by the patient at home, providing the clinician useful information between visits.

“We could do a better job with educating [clinicians] on the value of different outcome measures that can really quantify disease activity,” Dr. Allen said, and pointed to the GBS-CIDP Foundation centers of excellence, which exist in most regions of the United States, as an outstanding resource for anyone wanting to know more.

“The centers are really, really helpful when you’re trying to work through some of these issues,” he said.

Suggested Reading

Allen JA and Lewis RA. Neurology. 2015 Aug 11;85(6):498-504. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001833.

Allen J et al. Neurology. 2024;102(17_supplement_1). doi: 10.1212/WNL-.0000000000206324.

Van den Bergh PYK et al. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2021 Sep;26(3):242-268. doi: 10.1111/jns.12455.

CHICAGO — The landscape of antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, continues to grow more crowded in metastatic breast cancer. Indications are expanding, new agents are emerging, combinations with other drug classes are being tested, and many patients with this disease are now receiving more than one ADC.

ADCs use antibodies to bind to the surface proteins of cancer cells to deliver a potent payload of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Three are approved for use in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: sacituzumab govitecan, or SG, for patients with triple-negative disease; trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, for patients with HER2-positive and HER2-low disease; and trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1, for patients with HER2-positive disease. A fourth agent, datopotamab deruxtecan, or Dato-DXd, is being assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pretreated HR-positive, HER2-negative patients, and others, including sacituzumab tirumotecan, are being tested in clinical trials.At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) showed better progression free survival than chemotherapy in people with HR-positive, HER 2-low metastatic breast cancers. These findings, from the DESTINY Breast-06 trial, were among the most talked-about at ASCO, and are likely to change clinical practice (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1000]).

But other ADC results presented at ASCO showed that there is still much to be worked out about the timing and sequencing of these agents, as well as their synergy with other drug classes, in metastatic breast cancer.
 

An ADC gets its first test, and falls short

Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented findings from an open-label phase 2 study of the ADC enfortumab vedotin (EV), an agent currently approved for use in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, at ASCO. This study included two cohorts of previously treated metastatic breast cancer patients: one with triple-negative disease (n = 42) and the other with HR-positive HER2-negative (n = 45).

Dr. Giordano and his colleagues’ study is the first to look at this ADC in breast cancer. EV’s antibody targets the cell adhesion molecule Nectin-4.

The researchers found that though EV demonstrated anti-tumor activity in both cohorts — with 19% of the triple-negative patients and 15.6% of the HR-positive/HER2-negative patients responding — the results did not meet the prespecified response thresholds for either cohort. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 16; abstr 1005]).

In an interview, Dr. Giordano said that studies in urothelial cancer had shown better response to EV associated with more expression of Nectin-4, but this study did not see such clear associations between expression and response. While there is no question that Nectin-4 is highly expressed in breast cancer and therefore a viable target, he said, “it may need to be looked at a little more deeply.”

It could also be the case, Dr. Giordano said, that the effect of EV’s payload may have been less robust in participants who had been previously treated with taxane chemotherapy, as nearly all patients in the two cohorts were.

“Taxanes are microtubule disruptors. And with this drug we had a payload with pretty much the same mechanism of action,” Dr. Giordano said. Ideally, he said, he would like to test the agent in a first-line setting, possibly in combination with an immunotherapy agent.

The timing of ADCs is as important as their targets and their payloads — and something that investigators are still struggling to figure out, he said.

A third of the patients in the triple-negative cohort of his study had been previously treated with SG, and a handful of individuals with T-Dxd, he noted.

“We’re in the middle of an ADC revolution,” he said. “It’s really key to figure out the best sequencing for a patient and if it’s actually worth it to do it. Very often we see patients respond best to the first ADC. But sometimes we see patients that do not respond to the first ADC and then they respond to the second one. It’s not very frequent, but it happens.”
 

Hint of Benefit from Adding Immunotherapy to SG

In a separate presentation at ASCO, Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, also of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, presented results from the SACI-IO HR+ trial, a randomized phase 2 study of SG (Trodelvy, Gilead) with and without pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in 104 patients with metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who received prior endocrine therapy and up to one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease. SACI-IO HR+ is the first randomized trial to report the efficacy of a topoisomerase I-inhibitor ADC with an immune checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer.

The addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor did not result in a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the overall population, Dr. Garrido-Castro reported. Median PFS was 8.1 vs 6.2 months with the combination of SG plus pembrolizumab or sacituzumab govitecan alone, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, there was also no significant difference seen in median overall survival (OS): 18.5 vs 18.0 months.

About 40% of participants were found to have PD-L1-positive tumors and, among this subgroup, there was a 4.4-month increase in median PFS and 6.0-month increase in median OS with the addition of pembrolizumab to SG, although this did not reach statistical significance. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1004]).

“While the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit with the addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the ADC, there is an interesting signal for potential synergistic activity between the two agents, particularly in those patients with PD-L1 positive tumors,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said in an interview. She noted that the sample sizes for the PD-L1 subgroup were relatively small, and overall survival data are not yet mature.

A separate phase 3 study is looking at the experimental ADC called sacituzumab tirumotecan with and without pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior endocrine therapy and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, she said.

Similar to SG, sacituzumab tirumotecan is a TROP2-directed ADC with a topoisomerase I-inhibitor payload. With an estimated enrollment of 1,200 patients, this trial may help shed light on whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the topoisomerase I-inhibitor TROP2-directed ADC improves outcomes in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 positive tumors, Dr. Garrido-Castro said.
 

Unlocking the Order and Timing of ADCs

Dr. Garrido-Castro is also leading a study that will evaluate the sequential use of ADCs in metastatic breast cancer. That trial, to be called TRADE-DXd, will enroll patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who have received up to one prior line of chemotherapy and no previous topoisomerase I-inhibitors. Participants will receive either T-DXd or Dato-DXd as the first ADC, and then switch to the other ADC (Dato-DXd or T-DXd, respectively) at the time of progression, thus switching the target of the ADC from HER2 to TROP2 or vice versa.

“In real-world practice now, there are patients who receive sequential ADCs, because they are candidates for both,” Dr. Garrido-Castro explained. However, more robust data are needed to refine the selection of the initial antibody drug conjugate and to determine who is more likely to benefit from a second — or maybe even third — ADC.

“One potential mechanism of resistance to antibody drug conjugates is the downregulation of the target of the antibody drug conjugate,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said. “Thus, an important question is, if you modify the target of the ADC, is it possible to overcome that mechanism of resistance?” Another possible mechanism of resistance is to the chemotherapy payload of the ADCs, she said.

Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study will collect tumor samples and blood samples for the purposes of planned correlative analyses to try to better understand the mechanisms that drive response and resistance to these agents.

Dr. Giordano commented that Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study was likely to result in a much better understanding of ADCs and how to use them strategically.

At Dana-Farber, “we collect a lot of samples of patients receiving ADCs. And we are trying to do all kinds of work on circulating tumor DNA, immunohistochemistry expression, and protein expression,” he said. “We are trying to figure out how ADCs really work, and why they stop working.”

Dr. Giordano and colleagues’ study was funded by Astellas Pharma and by Seagen, which was bought by Pfizer in 2023. Dr. Giordano disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with this and other companies. Two were Astellas employees.

Dr. Garrido-Castro and colleagues’ study was funded by Merck and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Garrido-Castro disclosed receiving research support from Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Biovica, Foundation Medicine, 4D Path, Precede Biosciences; scientific advisory board/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; and other support from Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Merck, while her coauthors reported similar relationships.

CHICAGO — The landscape of antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, continues to grow more crowded in metastatic breast cancer. Indications are expanding, new agents are emerging, combinations with other drug classes are being tested, and many patients with this disease are now receiving more than one ADC.

ADCs use antibodies to bind to the surface proteins of cancer cells to deliver a potent payload of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Three are approved for use in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: sacituzumab govitecan, or SG, for patients with triple-negative disease; trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, for patients with HER2-positive and HER2-low disease; and trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1, for patients with HER2-positive disease. A fourth agent, datopotamab deruxtecan, or Dato-DXd, is being assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pretreated HR-positive, HER2-negative patients, and others, including sacituzumab tirumotecan, are being tested in clinical trials.At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) showed better progression free survival than chemotherapy in people with HR-positive, HER 2-low metastatic breast cancers. These findings, from the DESTINY Breast-06 trial, were among the most talked-about at ASCO, and are likely to change clinical practice (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1000]).

But other ADC results presented at ASCO showed that there is still much to be worked out about the timing and sequencing of these agents, as well as their synergy with other drug classes, in metastatic breast cancer.
 

An ADC gets its first test, and falls short

Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented findings from an open-label phase 2 study of the ADC enfortumab vedotin (EV), an agent currently approved for use in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, at ASCO. This study included two cohorts of previously treated metastatic breast cancer patients: one with triple-negative disease (n = 42) and the other with HR-positive HER2-negative (n = 45).

Dr. Giordano and his colleagues’ study is the first to look at this ADC in breast cancer. EV’s antibody targets the cell adhesion molecule Nectin-4.

The researchers found that though EV demonstrated anti-tumor activity in both cohorts — with 19% of the triple-negative patients and 15.6% of the HR-positive/HER2-negative patients responding — the results did not meet the prespecified response thresholds for either cohort. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 16; abstr 1005]).

In an interview, Dr. Giordano said that studies in urothelial cancer had shown better response to EV associated with more expression of Nectin-4, but this study did not see such clear associations between expression and response. While there is no question that Nectin-4 is highly expressed in breast cancer and therefore a viable target, he said, “it may need to be looked at a little more deeply.”

It could also be the case, Dr. Giordano said, that the effect of EV’s payload may have been less robust in participants who had been previously treated with taxane chemotherapy, as nearly all patients in the two cohorts were.

“Taxanes are microtubule disruptors. And with this drug we had a payload with pretty much the same mechanism of action,” Dr. Giordano said. Ideally, he said, he would like to test the agent in a first-line setting, possibly in combination with an immunotherapy agent.

The timing of ADCs is as important as their targets and their payloads — and something that investigators are still struggling to figure out, he said.

A third of the patients in the triple-negative cohort of his study had been previously treated with SG, and a handful of individuals with T-Dxd, he noted.

“We’re in the middle of an ADC revolution,” he said. “It’s really key to figure out the best sequencing for a patient and if it’s actually worth it to do it. Very often we see patients respond best to the first ADC. But sometimes we see patients that do not respond to the first ADC and then they respond to the second one. It’s not very frequent, but it happens.”
 

Hint of Benefit from Adding Immunotherapy to SG

In a separate presentation at ASCO, Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, also of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, presented results from the SACI-IO HR+ trial, a randomized phase 2 study of SG (Trodelvy, Gilead) with and without pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in 104 patients with metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who received prior endocrine therapy and up to one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease. SACI-IO HR+ is the first randomized trial to report the efficacy of a topoisomerase I-inhibitor ADC with an immune checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer.

The addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor did not result in a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the overall population, Dr. Garrido-Castro reported. Median PFS was 8.1 vs 6.2 months with the combination of SG plus pembrolizumab or sacituzumab govitecan alone, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, there was also no significant difference seen in median overall survival (OS): 18.5 vs 18.0 months.

About 40% of participants were found to have PD-L1-positive tumors and, among this subgroup, there was a 4.4-month increase in median PFS and 6.0-month increase in median OS with the addition of pembrolizumab to SG, although this did not reach statistical significance. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1004]).

“While the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit with the addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the ADC, there is an interesting signal for potential synergistic activity between the two agents, particularly in those patients with PD-L1 positive tumors,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said in an interview. She noted that the sample sizes for the PD-L1 subgroup were relatively small, and overall survival data are not yet mature.

A separate phase 3 study is looking at the experimental ADC called sacituzumab tirumotecan with and without pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior endocrine therapy and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, she said.

Similar to SG, sacituzumab tirumotecan is a TROP2-directed ADC with a topoisomerase I-inhibitor payload. With an estimated enrollment of 1,200 patients, this trial may help shed light on whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the topoisomerase I-inhibitor TROP2-directed ADC improves outcomes in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 positive tumors, Dr. Garrido-Castro said.
 

Unlocking the Order and Timing of ADCs

Dr. Garrido-Castro is also leading a study that will evaluate the sequential use of ADCs in metastatic breast cancer. That trial, to be called TRADE-DXd, will enroll patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who have received up to one prior line of chemotherapy and no previous topoisomerase I-inhibitors. Participants will receive either T-DXd or Dato-DXd as the first ADC, and then switch to the other ADC (Dato-DXd or T-DXd, respectively) at the time of progression, thus switching the target of the ADC from HER2 to TROP2 or vice versa.

“In real-world practice now, there are patients who receive sequential ADCs, because they are candidates for both,” Dr. Garrido-Castro explained. However, more robust data are needed to refine the selection of the initial antibody drug conjugate and to determine who is more likely to benefit from a second — or maybe even third — ADC.

“One potential mechanism of resistance to antibody drug conjugates is the downregulation of the target of the antibody drug conjugate,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said. “Thus, an important question is, if you modify the target of the ADC, is it possible to overcome that mechanism of resistance?” Another possible mechanism of resistance is to the chemotherapy payload of the ADCs, she said.

Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study will collect tumor samples and blood samples for the purposes of planned correlative analyses to try to better understand the mechanisms that drive response and resistance to these agents.

Dr. Giordano commented that Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study was likely to result in a much better understanding of ADCs and how to use them strategically.

At Dana-Farber, “we collect a lot of samples of patients receiving ADCs. And we are trying to do all kinds of work on circulating tumor DNA, immunohistochemistry expression, and protein expression,” he said. “We are trying to figure out how ADCs really work, and why they stop working.”

Dr. Giordano and colleagues’ study was funded by Astellas Pharma and by Seagen, which was bought by Pfizer in 2023. Dr. Giordano disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with this and other companies. Two were Astellas employees.

Dr. Garrido-Castro and colleagues’ study was funded by Merck and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Garrido-Castro disclosed receiving research support from Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Biovica, Foundation Medicine, 4D Path, Precede Biosciences; scientific advisory board/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; and other support from Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Merck, while her coauthors reported similar relationships.

CHICAGO — The landscape of antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, continues to grow more crowded in metastatic breast cancer. Indications are expanding, new agents are emerging, combinations with other drug classes are being tested, and many patients with this disease are now receiving more than one ADC.

ADCs use antibodies to bind to the surface proteins of cancer cells to deliver a potent payload of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Three are approved for use in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: sacituzumab govitecan, or SG, for patients with triple-negative disease; trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, for patients with HER2-positive and HER2-low disease; and trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1, for patients with HER2-positive disease. A fourth agent, datopotamab deruxtecan, or Dato-DXd, is being assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pretreated HR-positive, HER2-negative patients, and others, including sacituzumab tirumotecan, are being tested in clinical trials.At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) showed better progression free survival than chemotherapy in people with HR-positive, HER 2-low metastatic breast cancers. These findings, from the DESTINY Breast-06 trial, were among the most talked-about at ASCO, and are likely to change clinical practice (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1000]).

But other ADC results presented at ASCO showed that there is still much to be worked out about the timing and sequencing of these agents, as well as their synergy with other drug classes, in metastatic breast cancer.
 

An ADC gets its first test, and falls short

Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented findings from an open-label phase 2 study of the ADC enfortumab vedotin (EV), an agent currently approved for use in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, at ASCO. This study included two cohorts of previously treated metastatic breast cancer patients: one with triple-negative disease (n = 42) and the other with HR-positive HER2-negative (n = 45).

Dr. Giordano and his colleagues’ study is the first to look at this ADC in breast cancer. EV’s antibody targets the cell adhesion molecule Nectin-4.

The researchers found that though EV demonstrated anti-tumor activity in both cohorts — with 19% of the triple-negative patients and 15.6% of the HR-positive/HER2-negative patients responding — the results did not meet the prespecified response thresholds for either cohort. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 16; abstr 1005]).

In an interview, Dr. Giordano said that studies in urothelial cancer had shown better response to EV associated with more expression of Nectin-4, but this study did not see such clear associations between expression and response. While there is no question that Nectin-4 is highly expressed in breast cancer and therefore a viable target, he said, “it may need to be looked at a little more deeply.”

It could also be the case, Dr. Giordano said, that the effect of EV’s payload may have been less robust in participants who had been previously treated with taxane chemotherapy, as nearly all patients in the two cohorts were.

“Taxanes are microtubule disruptors. And with this drug we had a payload with pretty much the same mechanism of action,” Dr. Giordano said. Ideally, he said, he would like to test the agent in a first-line setting, possibly in combination with an immunotherapy agent.

The timing of ADCs is as important as their targets and their payloads — and something that investigators are still struggling to figure out, he said.

A third of the patients in the triple-negative cohort of his study had been previously treated with SG, and a handful of individuals with T-Dxd, he noted.

“We’re in the middle of an ADC revolution,” he said. “It’s really key to figure out the best sequencing for a patient and if it’s actually worth it to do it. Very often we see patients respond best to the first ADC. But sometimes we see patients that do not respond to the first ADC and then they respond to the second one. It’s not very frequent, but it happens.”
 

Hint of Benefit from Adding Immunotherapy to SG

In a separate presentation at ASCO, Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, also of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, presented results from the SACI-IO HR+ trial, a randomized phase 2 study of SG (Trodelvy, Gilead) with and without pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in 104 patients with metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who received prior endocrine therapy and up to one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease. SACI-IO HR+ is the first randomized trial to report the efficacy of a topoisomerase I-inhibitor ADC with an immune checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer.

The addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor did not result in a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the overall population, Dr. Garrido-Castro reported. Median PFS was 8.1 vs 6.2 months with the combination of SG plus pembrolizumab or sacituzumab govitecan alone, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, there was also no significant difference seen in median overall survival (OS): 18.5 vs 18.0 months.

About 40% of participants were found to have PD-L1-positive tumors and, among this subgroup, there was a 4.4-month increase in median PFS and 6.0-month increase in median OS with the addition of pembrolizumab to SG, although this did not reach statistical significance. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1004]).

“While the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit with the addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the ADC, there is an interesting signal for potential synergistic activity between the two agents, particularly in those patients with PD-L1 positive tumors,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said in an interview. She noted that the sample sizes for the PD-L1 subgroup were relatively small, and overall survival data are not yet mature.

A separate phase 3 study is looking at the experimental ADC called sacituzumab tirumotecan with and without pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior endocrine therapy and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, she said.

Similar to SG, sacituzumab tirumotecan is a TROP2-directed ADC with a topoisomerase I-inhibitor payload. With an estimated enrollment of 1,200 patients, this trial may help shed light on whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the topoisomerase I-inhibitor TROP2-directed ADC improves outcomes in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 positive tumors, Dr. Garrido-Castro said.
 

Unlocking the Order and Timing of ADCs

Dr. Garrido-Castro is also leading a study that will evaluate the sequential use of ADCs in metastatic breast cancer. That trial, to be called TRADE-DXd, will enroll patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who have received up to one prior line of chemotherapy and no previous topoisomerase I-inhibitors. Participants will receive either T-DXd or Dato-DXd as the first ADC, and then switch to the other ADC (Dato-DXd or T-DXd, respectively) at the time of progression, thus switching the target of the ADC from HER2 to TROP2 or vice versa.

“In real-world practice now, there are patients who receive sequential ADCs, because they are candidates for both,” Dr. Garrido-Castro explained. However, more robust data are needed to refine the selection of the initial antibody drug conjugate and to determine who is more likely to benefit from a second — or maybe even third — ADC.

“One potential mechanism of resistance to antibody drug conjugates is the downregulation of the target of the antibody drug conjugate,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said. “Thus, an important question is, if you modify the target of the ADC, is it possible to overcome that mechanism of resistance?” Another possible mechanism of resistance is to the chemotherapy payload of the ADCs, she said.

Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study will collect tumor samples and blood samples for the purposes of planned correlative analyses to try to better understand the mechanisms that drive response and resistance to these agents.

Dr. Giordano commented that Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study was likely to result in a much better understanding of ADCs and how to use them strategically.

At Dana-Farber, “we collect a lot of samples of patients receiving ADCs. And we are trying to do all kinds of work on circulating tumor DNA, immunohistochemistry expression, and protein expression,” he said. “We are trying to figure out how ADCs really work, and why they stop working.”

Dr. Giordano and colleagues’ study was funded by Astellas Pharma and by Seagen, which was bought by Pfizer in 2023. Dr. Giordano disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with this and other companies. Two were Astellas employees.

Dr. Garrido-Castro and colleagues’ study was funded by Merck and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Garrido-Castro disclosed receiving research support from Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Biovica, Foundation Medicine, 4D Path, Precede Biosciences; scientific advisory board/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; and other support from Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Merck, while her coauthors reported similar relationships.

CHICAGO – Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), or DNA shed from tumors that is detected in the bloodstream, has shown increasing promise as a prognostic tool in gastrointestinal cancers, allowing investigators to make real-time assessments of treatment response and the likelihood of recurrence.

Depending on the type of assay and analysis used, ctDNA can provide a wealth of information about cancer genetic variants. ctDNA assays can be used for primary screening, to track tumor burden, or to detect minimal residual disease (MRD) after cancer surgery.

However, ctDNA’s role in guiding clinical decisions is still being defined. Australian investigators presented research showing that a negative ctDNA finding can be used to avoid unnecessary chemotherapy in postoperative stage II colon cancer patients without affecting survival outcomes, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), in Chicago.

The same group also presented exploratory findings showing that positive ctDNA is a significant predictor of recurrence in people with early-stage pancreatic cancer following surgery. However, the investigators concluded, ctDNA status should not be used to inform treatment decisions concerning duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients.
 

DYNAMIC Trial Results

Jeanne Tie, MD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, presented 5-year survival results at ASCO from the DYNAMIC randomized controlled trial, whose 2-year findings had already shown ctDNA to be helpful in stratifying stage II colon cancer patients for adjuvant chemotherapy or no treatment.

Because surgery is curative in 80% of these patients, it is important to identify the minority that will need chemotherapy, Dr. Tie said.

At 5 years’ follow-up, Dr. Tie reported, patients randomized to a ctDNA-guided approach (negative ctDNA post surgery resulted in no treatment, and positive ctDNA led to adjuvant chemotherapy) did not see differences in overall survival compared with conventionally managed patients, who received chemotherapy at the clinician’s discretion.

Among ctDNA-guided patients in the study (n = 302), 5-year overall survival was 93.8%. For conventionally managed patients (n = 153), overall survival was 93.3% at 5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.47-2.37; P = .887).

Further, the researchers found that a high ctDNA clearance rate was achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy in postoperative patients who were ctDNA positive. And 5-year recurrence rates were markedly lower in patients who achieved ctDNA clearance, compared with those who did not: 85.2% vs 20% (HR, 15.4; 95% CI, 3.91-61.0; P < .001).

“This approach of only treating patients with a positive ctDNA achieved excellent survival outcomes, including in patients with T4 disease. A high ctDNA clearance rate can be achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy, and this in turn was associated with favorable outcomes,” Dr. Tie said during the meeting. “And finally, the precision of the ctDNA approach may be further refined by increasing [the number of genetic variants] tracked and by incorporating ctDNA molecular burden. However, these findings will require further validation.”
 

DYNAMIC-Pancreas Study Results

In a separate presentation during the same session, Belinda Lee, MD, also of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, showed results from the DYNAMIC-Pancreas study, which looked at ctDNA testing a median 5 weeks after surgery in 102 people with early-stage (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1) pancreatic cancer. Patients who were ctDNA positive received 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy of the physician’s choice (FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/capecitabine) while those who were ctDNA negative after surgery had the option to de-escalate to 3 months of chemotherapy treatment at the physician’s discretion.

At a median 3 years’ follow-up, Dr. Lee and colleagues found that the median recurrence-free survival was 13 months for patients who were ctDNA positive after surgery and 22 months for those who were ctDNA negative (HR, 0.52; P = .003), showing that positive ctDNA is prognostic of earlier recurrence independent of other factors.

Dr. Lee said that, given the high recurrence risk also seen in ctDNA-negative patients, reducing duration of chemotherapy was not recommended based on ctDNA-negative status.

In an interview, Stacey Cohen, MD, of Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, the discussant on the two presentations at ASCO, said that, until these results are further validated in stage II colon cancer patients,t it is unlikely that they will change clinical practice guidelines.

“They did an amazing job,” Dr. Cohen said of the researchers. “They’re at the forefront of the field of actually doing prospective analysis. And yet there are still some gaps that are missing in our understanding.”

The assays used in both studies, Dr. Cohen noted, are used only in research and are not available commercially in the United States. That, plus the fact that physicians were allowed to choose between chemotherapy regimens, made it harder to parse the results.

“Provider choice increases bias,” Dr. Cohen said. “And I think that’s the problem of having two chemo regimens to choose from, or in the case of the colon cancer trial, not selecting whether patients got a single chemotherapy agent or a doublet. These are pretty big differences.”

But the field is moving quickly, “and it is an exciting time to improve patient selection for chemotherapy treatment,” she continued.

Allowing physicians to choose chemotherapy regimens reflected real-world clinical practice, “especially given that this study is designed to test a strategy rather than a specific treatment, said Dr. Tie in an interview. “More work will need to be done to specifically address the question of which chemotherapy regimen is more effective to treat ctDNA-positive disease.”

Dr. Cohen noted that, while evidence is mounting to support the value of ctDNA in colon cancer, there is far less evidence for pancreatic cancer.

Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study “adds to the literature, and I think what it teaches us is that ctDNA remains a prognostic risk factor,” she said. “But we saw that even patients who are negative have a high recurrence risk. So we’re not ready to act on it yet. As with the colon cancer study, different chemotherapy regimens were used, and for different time lengths.”

Whether in colon cancer or pancreatic cancer, ctDNA results, “are highly tied to which assay you’re using and which scenario you’re testing them in,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Tie and colleagues’ study was sponsored by her institution, with additional funding received from the Australian government, the National Institutes of Health, and other foundations. She disclosed speaking and/or consulting fees from Haystack Oncology, Amgen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, and others. Dr. Lee’s study was sponsored by the Marcus Foundation. She disclosed receiving honoraria from Roche. Dr. Cohen reported no conflicts of interest.

CHICAGO – Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), or DNA shed from tumors that is detected in the bloodstream, has shown increasing promise as a prognostic tool in gastrointestinal cancers, allowing investigators to make real-time assessments of treatment response and the likelihood of recurrence.

Depending on the type of assay and analysis used, ctDNA can provide a wealth of information about cancer genetic variants. ctDNA assays can be used for primary screening, to track tumor burden, or to detect minimal residual disease (MRD) after cancer surgery.

However, ctDNA’s role in guiding clinical decisions is still being defined. Australian investigators presented research showing that a negative ctDNA finding can be used to avoid unnecessary chemotherapy in postoperative stage II colon cancer patients without affecting survival outcomes, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), in Chicago.

The same group also presented exploratory findings showing that positive ctDNA is a significant predictor of recurrence in people with early-stage pancreatic cancer following surgery. However, the investigators concluded, ctDNA status should not be used to inform treatment decisions concerning duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients.
 

DYNAMIC Trial Results

Jeanne Tie, MD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, presented 5-year survival results at ASCO from the DYNAMIC randomized controlled trial, whose 2-year findings had already shown ctDNA to be helpful in stratifying stage II colon cancer patients for adjuvant chemotherapy or no treatment.

Because surgery is curative in 80% of these patients, it is important to identify the minority that will need chemotherapy, Dr. Tie said.

At 5 years’ follow-up, Dr. Tie reported, patients randomized to a ctDNA-guided approach (negative ctDNA post surgery resulted in no treatment, and positive ctDNA led to adjuvant chemotherapy) did not see differences in overall survival compared with conventionally managed patients, who received chemotherapy at the clinician’s discretion.

Among ctDNA-guided patients in the study (n = 302), 5-year overall survival was 93.8%. For conventionally managed patients (n = 153), overall survival was 93.3% at 5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.47-2.37; P = .887).

Further, the researchers found that a high ctDNA clearance rate was achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy in postoperative patients who were ctDNA positive. And 5-year recurrence rates were markedly lower in patients who achieved ctDNA clearance, compared with those who did not: 85.2% vs 20% (HR, 15.4; 95% CI, 3.91-61.0; P < .001).

“This approach of only treating patients with a positive ctDNA achieved excellent survival outcomes, including in patients with T4 disease. A high ctDNA clearance rate can be achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy, and this in turn was associated with favorable outcomes,” Dr. Tie said during the meeting. “And finally, the precision of the ctDNA approach may be further refined by increasing [the number of genetic variants] tracked and by incorporating ctDNA molecular burden. However, these findings will require further validation.”
 

DYNAMIC-Pancreas Study Results

In a separate presentation during the same session, Belinda Lee, MD, also of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, showed results from the DYNAMIC-Pancreas study, which looked at ctDNA testing a median 5 weeks after surgery in 102 people with early-stage (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1) pancreatic cancer. Patients who were ctDNA positive received 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy of the physician’s choice (FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/capecitabine) while those who were ctDNA negative after surgery had the option to de-escalate to 3 months of chemotherapy treatment at the physician’s discretion.

At a median 3 years’ follow-up, Dr. Lee and colleagues found that the median recurrence-free survival was 13 months for patients who were ctDNA positive after surgery and 22 months for those who were ctDNA negative (HR, 0.52; P = .003), showing that positive ctDNA is prognostic of earlier recurrence independent of other factors.

Dr. Lee said that, given the high recurrence risk also seen in ctDNA-negative patients, reducing duration of chemotherapy was not recommended based on ctDNA-negative status.

In an interview, Stacey Cohen, MD, of Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, the discussant on the two presentations at ASCO, said that, until these results are further validated in stage II colon cancer patients,t it is unlikely that they will change clinical practice guidelines.

“They did an amazing job,” Dr. Cohen said of the researchers. “They’re at the forefront of the field of actually doing prospective analysis. And yet there are still some gaps that are missing in our understanding.”

The assays used in both studies, Dr. Cohen noted, are used only in research and are not available commercially in the United States. That, plus the fact that physicians were allowed to choose between chemotherapy regimens, made it harder to parse the results.

“Provider choice increases bias,” Dr. Cohen said. “And I think that’s the problem of having two chemo regimens to choose from, or in the case of the colon cancer trial, not selecting whether patients got a single chemotherapy agent or a doublet. These are pretty big differences.”

But the field is moving quickly, “and it is an exciting time to improve patient selection for chemotherapy treatment,” she continued.

Allowing physicians to choose chemotherapy regimens reflected real-world clinical practice, “especially given that this study is designed to test a strategy rather than a specific treatment, said Dr. Tie in an interview. “More work will need to be done to specifically address the question of which chemotherapy regimen is more effective to treat ctDNA-positive disease.”

Dr. Cohen noted that, while evidence is mounting to support the value of ctDNA in colon cancer, there is far less evidence for pancreatic cancer.

Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study “adds to the literature, and I think what it teaches us is that ctDNA remains a prognostic risk factor,” she said. “But we saw that even patients who are negative have a high recurrence risk. So we’re not ready to act on it yet. As with the colon cancer study, different chemotherapy regimens were used, and for different time lengths.”

Whether in colon cancer or pancreatic cancer, ctDNA results, “are highly tied to which assay you’re using and which scenario you’re testing them in,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Tie and colleagues’ study was sponsored by her institution, with additional funding received from the Australian government, the National Institutes of Health, and other foundations. She disclosed speaking and/or consulting fees from Haystack Oncology, Amgen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, and others. Dr. Lee’s study was sponsored by the Marcus Foundation. She disclosed receiving honoraria from Roche. Dr. Cohen reported no conflicts of interest.

CHICAGO – Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), or DNA shed from tumors that is detected in the bloodstream, has shown increasing promise as a prognostic tool in gastrointestinal cancers, allowing investigators to make real-time assessments of treatment response and the likelihood of recurrence.

Depending on the type of assay and analysis used, ctDNA can provide a wealth of information about cancer genetic variants. ctDNA assays can be used for primary screening, to track tumor burden, or to detect minimal residual disease (MRD) after cancer surgery.

However, ctDNA’s role in guiding clinical decisions is still being defined. Australian investigators presented research showing that a negative ctDNA finding can be used to avoid unnecessary chemotherapy in postoperative stage II colon cancer patients without affecting survival outcomes, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), in Chicago.

The same group also presented exploratory findings showing that positive ctDNA is a significant predictor of recurrence in people with early-stage pancreatic cancer following surgery. However, the investigators concluded, ctDNA status should not be used to inform treatment decisions concerning duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients.
 

DYNAMIC Trial Results

Jeanne Tie, MD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, presented 5-year survival results at ASCO from the DYNAMIC randomized controlled trial, whose 2-year findings had already shown ctDNA to be helpful in stratifying stage II colon cancer patients for adjuvant chemotherapy or no treatment.

Because surgery is curative in 80% of these patients, it is important to identify the minority that will need chemotherapy, Dr. Tie said.

At 5 years’ follow-up, Dr. Tie reported, patients randomized to a ctDNA-guided approach (negative ctDNA post surgery resulted in no treatment, and positive ctDNA led to adjuvant chemotherapy) did not see differences in overall survival compared with conventionally managed patients, who received chemotherapy at the clinician’s discretion.

Among ctDNA-guided patients in the study (n = 302), 5-year overall survival was 93.8%. For conventionally managed patients (n = 153), overall survival was 93.3% at 5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.47-2.37; P = .887).

Further, the researchers found that a high ctDNA clearance rate was achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy in postoperative patients who were ctDNA positive. And 5-year recurrence rates were markedly lower in patients who achieved ctDNA clearance, compared with those who did not: 85.2% vs 20% (HR, 15.4; 95% CI, 3.91-61.0; P < .001).

“This approach of only treating patients with a positive ctDNA achieved excellent survival outcomes, including in patients with T4 disease. A high ctDNA clearance rate can be achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy, and this in turn was associated with favorable outcomes,” Dr. Tie said during the meeting. “And finally, the precision of the ctDNA approach may be further refined by increasing [the number of genetic variants] tracked and by incorporating ctDNA molecular burden. However, these findings will require further validation.”
 

DYNAMIC-Pancreas Study Results

In a separate presentation during the same session, Belinda Lee, MD, also of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, showed results from the DYNAMIC-Pancreas study, which looked at ctDNA testing a median 5 weeks after surgery in 102 people with early-stage (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1) pancreatic cancer. Patients who were ctDNA positive received 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy of the physician’s choice (FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/capecitabine) while those who were ctDNA negative after surgery had the option to de-escalate to 3 months of chemotherapy treatment at the physician’s discretion.

At a median 3 years’ follow-up, Dr. Lee and colleagues found that the median recurrence-free survival was 13 months for patients who were ctDNA positive after surgery and 22 months for those who were ctDNA negative (HR, 0.52; P = .003), showing that positive ctDNA is prognostic of earlier recurrence independent of other factors.

Dr. Lee said that, given the high recurrence risk also seen in ctDNA-negative patients, reducing duration of chemotherapy was not recommended based on ctDNA-negative status.

In an interview, Stacey Cohen, MD, of Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, the discussant on the two presentations at ASCO, said that, until these results are further validated in stage II colon cancer patients,t it is unlikely that they will change clinical practice guidelines.

“They did an amazing job,” Dr. Cohen said of the researchers. “They’re at the forefront of the field of actually doing prospective analysis. And yet there are still some gaps that are missing in our understanding.”

The assays used in both studies, Dr. Cohen noted, are used only in research and are not available commercially in the United States. That, plus the fact that physicians were allowed to choose between chemotherapy regimens, made it harder to parse the results.

“Provider choice increases bias,” Dr. Cohen said. “And I think that’s the problem of having two chemo regimens to choose from, or in the case of the colon cancer trial, not selecting whether patients got a single chemotherapy agent or a doublet. These are pretty big differences.”

But the field is moving quickly, “and it is an exciting time to improve patient selection for chemotherapy treatment,” she continued.

Allowing physicians to choose chemotherapy regimens reflected real-world clinical practice, “especially given that this study is designed to test a strategy rather than a specific treatment, said Dr. Tie in an interview. “More work will need to be done to specifically address the question of which chemotherapy regimen is more effective to treat ctDNA-positive disease.”

Dr. Cohen noted that, while evidence is mounting to support the value of ctDNA in colon cancer, there is far less evidence for pancreatic cancer.

Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study “adds to the literature, and I think what it teaches us is that ctDNA remains a prognostic risk factor,” she said. “But we saw that even patients who are negative have a high recurrence risk. So we’re not ready to act on it yet. As with the colon cancer study, different chemotherapy regimens were used, and for different time lengths.”

Whether in colon cancer or pancreatic cancer, ctDNA results, “are highly tied to which assay you’re using and which scenario you’re testing them in,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Tie and colleagues’ study was sponsored by her institution, with additional funding received from the Australian government, the National Institutes of Health, and other foundations. She disclosed speaking and/or consulting fees from Haystack Oncology, Amgen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, and others. Dr. Lee’s study was sponsored by the Marcus Foundation. She disclosed receiving honoraria from Roche. Dr. Cohen reported no conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, is an effective first-line treatment in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer, conferring an additional 5 months’ progression-free survival over chemotherapy.

HER2-low cancers express levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 that are below standard thresholds for HER2-positive immunohistochemistry. In 2022, results from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial showed T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) to be an effective second-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

The highly awaited new findings, from the manufacturer-sponsored, open-label Phase 3 DESTINY-Breast06 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, Illinois.

The findings not only definitively establish a role for T-DXd earlier in the treatment sequence for HER2-low cancers, they also suggest benefit in a group of patients designated for the purposes of this trial to be HER2-ultralow. These patients have cancers with only faintly detectable HER2 expression on currently used assays (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 17; abstr LBA 1000]).

In a separate set of findings also presented at ASCO, from the randomized phase 1B open-label study, DESTINY-Breast07, T-Dxd showed efficacy in previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients both alone and in combination with the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech).
 

DESTINY-Breast06 Methods and Results

The DESTINY-Breast06 findings were presented by lead investigator Guiseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Curigliano and his colleagues randomized 866 patients with metastatic breast cancer: 436 to intravenous T-Dxd and 430 to the investigator’s choice of capecitabine, nab-paclitaxel, or paclitaxel chemotherapy. The investigators chose capecitabine 60% of the time.

Most patients had cancers classed as HER2 low (immunohistochemistry 1+ or 2+), while 153 had cancers classed by investigators as HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with membrane staining or IHC under 1+). Patients enrolled in the study were those whose disease had progressed after endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy. Patients’ median age was between 57 and 58, and all were chemotherapy-naive in the metastatic breast cancer setting.

The main outcome of the study was median progression-free survival in the HER2-low group. T-Dxd was seen improving progression-free survival, with median 13.2 months vs. 8.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.74; P < .0001). In the intention-to-treat population, which included the HER2 ultralow patients, the benefit was the same (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .0001). This suggested that T-DXd is also effective in these patients, and it will be extremely important going forward to identify the lowest level of HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancers that can still benefit from therapy with T-DxD, Dr. Curigliano said.

Overall survival could not be assessed in the study cohort because complete data were not yet available, Dr. Curigliano said. However, trends pointed to an advantage for T-DXd, and tumor response rates were markedly higher with T-DXd: 57% compared with 31% for standard chemotherapy in the full cohort.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the T-Dxd–treated patients, with 11% of that arm developing drug-related interstitial lung disease, and three patients dying of it. Five patients in the T-DXd arm died of adverse events deemed treatment-related, and none died from treatment-related adverse events in the standard chemotherapy arm. Altogether 11 patients died in the T-DXd arm and 6 in the chemotherapy arm.
 

Clinical Implications of DESTINY-Breast06

The DESTINY-Breast06 data show that “we have to again change how we think about HER2 expression. Even very low levels of HER2 expression matter, and they can be leveraged to improve the treatment for our patients,” said Ian Krop, MD, PhD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, during the session where the results were presented.

But T-DXd may not be an appropriate first choice for all patients, especially given the safety concerns associated with T-DXd, he continued. With overall survival and quality-of-life data still lacking, clinicians will have to determine on a case-by-case basis who should get T-DXd in the first line.

“For patients who have symptomatic metastatic disease, who need a response to address those symptoms, those in whom you think chemotherapy may not work as well because they had, for example, a short recurrence interval after their adjuvant chemotherapy — using T-DXd in that first-line setting makes perfect sense to take advantage of the substantially higher response rate compared to chemo,” Dr. Krop said. “But for patients who have asymptomatic low burdens of disease, it seems very reasonable to consider using a well-tolerated chemotherapy like capecitabine in the first line, and then using T-DXd in the second line.”

In an interview, Erica Mayer, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said patient choice will also matter in determining whether T-DXd is a first-line option. The known toxicity of T-DXd was underscored by the latest findings, she noted, while capecitabine, one of the chemotherapy choices in the control arm of the study, “really reflects what the majority of breast cancer doctors tend to offer, both because of the efficacy of the drug, but also because it’s oral, it’s well tolerated, and you don’t lose your hair.”
 

DESTINY-Breast07 Results

The DESTINY-Breast07 findings, from a Phase 1B open-label trial measuring safety and tolerability, were presented by Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, of Université Paris Saclay in Paris, France. Dr. Andre and his colleagues presented the first data comparing T-DXd monotherapy and T-DXd with pertuzumab — a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 — as a first-line treatment in patients with HER2-overexpressing (immunohistochemistry 3 and above) metastatic breast cancer. (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 16; abstr 1009]).

Current first-line standard of care for these patients is pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, based on results from the 2015 CLEOPATRA trial. T-DXd is currently approved as a second-line treatment.

Dr. Andre and his colleagues randomized 75 patients to monotherapy with T-DXd and 50 to combined therapy, with a median follow-up of 2 years.

After 1 year of treatment, combination of T-DXd and pertuzumab was seen to be associated with a progression-free survival of 89% at 1 year (80% CI, 81.9-93.9), compared with 80% in patients treated with T-DXd alone (80% CI, 73.7-86.1). Objective tumor response rate was 84% for the combined therapy at 12 weeks, with 20% of patients seeing a complete response, compared with 76% and 8%, respectively, for monotherapy.

As in the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, adverse events were high, with interstitial lung disease seen in 9% of patients in the monotherapy group and in 14% of the combined-therapy patients, although no treatment-related deaths occurred.

A randomized phase 3 trial, DESTINY Breast09, will now compare the monotherapy and the combined therapy with standard care.

T-DXd has seen a rapidly expanding role in treating breast and other solid tumors. The DESTINY Breast06 findings will move up its place in the treatment algorithm for metastatic breast cancer, “allowing us to now offer T-DXd as the first chemotherapy choice for patients who are making that transition to chemotherapy over many of the traditional provider choices that we previously have offered,” Dr. Mayer said.

The results “support the use of not only this specific agent, but also the concept of antibody drug conjugates as a very effective way to treat malignancy,” she added.

Dr. Curigliano reported receiving speaker’s fees, research funding, and other support from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, among other companies, as did most of his co-authors, of whom three were AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Fabrice disclosed receiving research funding, travel compensation, and/or advisory fees from AstraZeneca and other entities, as did several of his co-authors. Two of his co-authors were employed by AstraZeneca and Roche, manufacturers of the study drugs. Dr. Krop and Dr. Mayer disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and others.

The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, is an effective first-line treatment in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer, conferring an additional 5 months’ progression-free survival over chemotherapy.

HER2-low cancers express levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 that are below standard thresholds for HER2-positive immunohistochemistry. In 2022, results from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial showed T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) to be an effective second-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

The highly awaited new findings, from the manufacturer-sponsored, open-label Phase 3 DESTINY-Breast06 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, Illinois.

The findings not only definitively establish a role for T-DXd earlier in the treatment sequence for HER2-low cancers, they also suggest benefit in a group of patients designated for the purposes of this trial to be HER2-ultralow. These patients have cancers with only faintly detectable HER2 expression on currently used assays (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 17; abstr LBA 1000]).

In a separate set of findings also presented at ASCO, from the randomized phase 1B open-label study, DESTINY-Breast07, T-Dxd showed efficacy in previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients both alone and in combination with the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech).
 

DESTINY-Breast06 Methods and Results

The DESTINY-Breast06 findings were presented by lead investigator Guiseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Curigliano and his colleagues randomized 866 patients with metastatic breast cancer: 436 to intravenous T-Dxd and 430 to the investigator’s choice of capecitabine, nab-paclitaxel, or paclitaxel chemotherapy. The investigators chose capecitabine 60% of the time.

Most patients had cancers classed as HER2 low (immunohistochemistry 1+ or 2+), while 153 had cancers classed by investigators as HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with membrane staining or IHC under 1+). Patients enrolled in the study were those whose disease had progressed after endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy. Patients’ median age was between 57 and 58, and all were chemotherapy-naive in the metastatic breast cancer setting.

The main outcome of the study was median progression-free survival in the HER2-low group. T-Dxd was seen improving progression-free survival, with median 13.2 months vs. 8.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.74; P < .0001). In the intention-to-treat population, which included the HER2 ultralow patients, the benefit was the same (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .0001). This suggested that T-DXd is also effective in these patients, and it will be extremely important going forward to identify the lowest level of HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancers that can still benefit from therapy with T-DxD, Dr. Curigliano said.

Overall survival could not be assessed in the study cohort because complete data were not yet available, Dr. Curigliano said. However, trends pointed to an advantage for T-DXd, and tumor response rates were markedly higher with T-DXd: 57% compared with 31% for standard chemotherapy in the full cohort.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the T-Dxd–treated patients, with 11% of that arm developing drug-related interstitial lung disease, and three patients dying of it. Five patients in the T-DXd arm died of adverse events deemed treatment-related, and none died from treatment-related adverse events in the standard chemotherapy arm. Altogether 11 patients died in the T-DXd arm and 6 in the chemotherapy arm.
 

Clinical Implications of DESTINY-Breast06

The DESTINY-Breast06 data show that “we have to again change how we think about HER2 expression. Even very low levels of HER2 expression matter, and they can be leveraged to improve the treatment for our patients,” said Ian Krop, MD, PhD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, during the session where the results were presented.

But T-DXd may not be an appropriate first choice for all patients, especially given the safety concerns associated with T-DXd, he continued. With overall survival and quality-of-life data still lacking, clinicians will have to determine on a case-by-case basis who should get T-DXd in the first line.

“For patients who have symptomatic metastatic disease, who need a response to address those symptoms, those in whom you think chemotherapy may not work as well because they had, for example, a short recurrence interval after their adjuvant chemotherapy — using T-DXd in that first-line setting makes perfect sense to take advantage of the substantially higher response rate compared to chemo,” Dr. Krop said. “But for patients who have asymptomatic low burdens of disease, it seems very reasonable to consider using a well-tolerated chemotherapy like capecitabine in the first line, and then using T-DXd in the second line.”

In an interview, Erica Mayer, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said patient choice will also matter in determining whether T-DXd is a first-line option. The known toxicity of T-DXd was underscored by the latest findings, she noted, while capecitabine, one of the chemotherapy choices in the control arm of the study, “really reflects what the majority of breast cancer doctors tend to offer, both because of the efficacy of the drug, but also because it’s oral, it’s well tolerated, and you don’t lose your hair.”
 

DESTINY-Breast07 Results

The DESTINY-Breast07 findings, from a Phase 1B open-label trial measuring safety and tolerability, were presented by Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, of Université Paris Saclay in Paris, France. Dr. Andre and his colleagues presented the first data comparing T-DXd monotherapy and T-DXd with pertuzumab — a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 — as a first-line treatment in patients with HER2-overexpressing (immunohistochemistry 3 and above) metastatic breast cancer. (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 16; abstr 1009]).

Current first-line standard of care for these patients is pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, based on results from the 2015 CLEOPATRA trial. T-DXd is currently approved as a second-line treatment.

Dr. Andre and his colleagues randomized 75 patients to monotherapy with T-DXd and 50 to combined therapy, with a median follow-up of 2 years.

After 1 year of treatment, combination of T-DXd and pertuzumab was seen to be associated with a progression-free survival of 89% at 1 year (80% CI, 81.9-93.9), compared with 80% in patients treated with T-DXd alone (80% CI, 73.7-86.1). Objective tumor response rate was 84% for the combined therapy at 12 weeks, with 20% of patients seeing a complete response, compared with 76% and 8%, respectively, for monotherapy.

As in the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, adverse events were high, with interstitial lung disease seen in 9% of patients in the monotherapy group and in 14% of the combined-therapy patients, although no treatment-related deaths occurred.

A randomized phase 3 trial, DESTINY Breast09, will now compare the monotherapy and the combined therapy with standard care.

T-DXd has seen a rapidly expanding role in treating breast and other solid tumors. The DESTINY Breast06 findings will move up its place in the treatment algorithm for metastatic breast cancer, “allowing us to now offer T-DXd as the first chemotherapy choice for patients who are making that transition to chemotherapy over many of the traditional provider choices that we previously have offered,” Dr. Mayer said.

The results “support the use of not only this specific agent, but also the concept of antibody drug conjugates as a very effective way to treat malignancy,” she added.

Dr. Curigliano reported receiving speaker’s fees, research funding, and other support from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, among other companies, as did most of his co-authors, of whom three were AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Fabrice disclosed receiving research funding, travel compensation, and/or advisory fees from AstraZeneca and other entities, as did several of his co-authors. Two of his co-authors were employed by AstraZeneca and Roche, manufacturers of the study drugs. Dr. Krop and Dr. Mayer disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and others.

The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, is an effective first-line treatment in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer, conferring an additional 5 months’ progression-free survival over chemotherapy.

HER2-low cancers express levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 that are below standard thresholds for HER2-positive immunohistochemistry. In 2022, results from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial showed T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) to be an effective second-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

The highly awaited new findings, from the manufacturer-sponsored, open-label Phase 3 DESTINY-Breast06 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, Illinois.

The findings not only definitively establish a role for T-DXd earlier in the treatment sequence for HER2-low cancers, they also suggest benefit in a group of patients designated for the purposes of this trial to be HER2-ultralow. These patients have cancers with only faintly detectable HER2 expression on currently used assays (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 17; abstr LBA 1000]).

In a separate set of findings also presented at ASCO, from the randomized phase 1B open-label study, DESTINY-Breast07, T-Dxd showed efficacy in previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients both alone and in combination with the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech).
 

DESTINY-Breast06 Methods and Results

The DESTINY-Breast06 findings were presented by lead investigator Guiseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Curigliano and his colleagues randomized 866 patients with metastatic breast cancer: 436 to intravenous T-Dxd and 430 to the investigator’s choice of capecitabine, nab-paclitaxel, or paclitaxel chemotherapy. The investigators chose capecitabine 60% of the time.

Most patients had cancers classed as HER2 low (immunohistochemistry 1+ or 2+), while 153 had cancers classed by investigators as HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with membrane staining or IHC under 1+). Patients enrolled in the study were those whose disease had progressed after endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy. Patients’ median age was between 57 and 58, and all were chemotherapy-naive in the metastatic breast cancer setting.

The main outcome of the study was median progression-free survival in the HER2-low group. T-Dxd was seen improving progression-free survival, with median 13.2 months vs. 8.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.74; P < .0001). In the intention-to-treat population, which included the HER2 ultralow patients, the benefit was the same (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .0001). This suggested that T-DXd is also effective in these patients, and it will be extremely important going forward to identify the lowest level of HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancers that can still benefit from therapy with T-DxD, Dr. Curigliano said.

Overall survival could not be assessed in the study cohort because complete data were not yet available, Dr. Curigliano said. However, trends pointed to an advantage for T-DXd, and tumor response rates were markedly higher with T-DXd: 57% compared with 31% for standard chemotherapy in the full cohort.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the T-Dxd–treated patients, with 11% of that arm developing drug-related interstitial lung disease, and three patients dying of it. Five patients in the T-DXd arm died of adverse events deemed treatment-related, and none died from treatment-related adverse events in the standard chemotherapy arm. Altogether 11 patients died in the T-DXd arm and 6 in the chemotherapy arm.
 

Clinical Implications of DESTINY-Breast06

The DESTINY-Breast06 data show that “we have to again change how we think about HER2 expression. Even very low levels of HER2 expression matter, and they can be leveraged to improve the treatment for our patients,” said Ian Krop, MD, PhD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, during the session where the results were presented.

But T-DXd may not be an appropriate first choice for all patients, especially given the safety concerns associated with T-DXd, he continued. With overall survival and quality-of-life data still lacking, clinicians will have to determine on a case-by-case basis who should get T-DXd in the first line.

“For patients who have symptomatic metastatic disease, who need a response to address those symptoms, those in whom you think chemotherapy may not work as well because they had, for example, a short recurrence interval after their adjuvant chemotherapy — using T-DXd in that first-line setting makes perfect sense to take advantage of the substantially higher response rate compared to chemo,” Dr. Krop said. “But for patients who have asymptomatic low burdens of disease, it seems very reasonable to consider using a well-tolerated chemotherapy like capecitabine in the first line, and then using T-DXd in the second line.”

In an interview, Erica Mayer, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said patient choice will also matter in determining whether T-DXd is a first-line option. The known toxicity of T-DXd was underscored by the latest findings, she noted, while capecitabine, one of the chemotherapy choices in the control arm of the study, “really reflects what the majority of breast cancer doctors tend to offer, both because of the efficacy of the drug, but also because it’s oral, it’s well tolerated, and you don’t lose your hair.”
 

DESTINY-Breast07 Results

The DESTINY-Breast07 findings, from a Phase 1B open-label trial measuring safety and tolerability, were presented by Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, of Université Paris Saclay in Paris, France. Dr. Andre and his colleagues presented the first data comparing T-DXd monotherapy and T-DXd with pertuzumab — a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 — as a first-line treatment in patients with HER2-overexpressing (immunohistochemistry 3 and above) metastatic breast cancer. (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 16; abstr 1009]).

Current first-line standard of care for these patients is pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, based on results from the 2015 CLEOPATRA trial. T-DXd is currently approved as a second-line treatment.

Dr. Andre and his colleagues randomized 75 patients to monotherapy with T-DXd and 50 to combined therapy, with a median follow-up of 2 years.

After 1 year of treatment, combination of T-DXd and pertuzumab was seen to be associated with a progression-free survival of 89% at 1 year (80% CI, 81.9-93.9), compared with 80% in patients treated with T-DXd alone (80% CI, 73.7-86.1). Objective tumor response rate was 84% for the combined therapy at 12 weeks, with 20% of patients seeing a complete response, compared with 76% and 8%, respectively, for monotherapy.

As in the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, adverse events were high, with interstitial lung disease seen in 9% of patients in the monotherapy group and in 14% of the combined-therapy patients, although no treatment-related deaths occurred.

A randomized phase 3 trial, DESTINY Breast09, will now compare the monotherapy and the combined therapy with standard care.

T-DXd has seen a rapidly expanding role in treating breast and other solid tumors. The DESTINY Breast06 findings will move up its place in the treatment algorithm for metastatic breast cancer, “allowing us to now offer T-DXd as the first chemotherapy choice for patients who are making that transition to chemotherapy over many of the traditional provider choices that we previously have offered,” Dr. Mayer said.

The results “support the use of not only this specific agent, but also the concept of antibody drug conjugates as a very effective way to treat malignancy,” she added.

Dr. Curigliano reported receiving speaker’s fees, research funding, and other support from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, among other companies, as did most of his co-authors, of whom three were AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Fabrice disclosed receiving research funding, travel compensation, and/or advisory fees from AstraZeneca and other entities, as did several of his co-authors. Two of his co-authors were employed by AstraZeneca and Roche, manufacturers of the study drugs. Dr. Krop and Dr. Mayer disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and others.

For women with early-stage estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine therapy is known to decrease the likelihood of recurrence and improve survival, while omitting the therapy is associated with a higher risk of death.

For that reason, current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers.

But these and other guidelines do not make recommendations for a class of tumors deemed estrogen receptor low positive, often referred to as “ER-low,” a category in which ER is seen expressed in between 1% and 10% of cells. This is because benefits of endocrine therapy have not been demonstrated in patients with ER-low disease.

New research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago may change how clinicians and patients think about endocrine therapy. The findings showed that omitting endocrine therapy after surgery and chemotherapy was associated with a 25% higher chance of death within 3 years in ER-low patients.

Endocrine therapy, the investigators say, should therefore be offered to all patients with ER-low cancers, at least until it can be determined which subgroups are most likely to benefit.

How Was the Study Conducted?

Grace M. Choong, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and her colleagues, looked at 2018-2020 data from the National Cancer Database for more than 350,000 female patients with stages 1-3, ER+ breast cancer. From among these they identified about 7000 patients with ER-low cancers who had undergone adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

“We specifically wanted to focus on those treated with chemotherapy as these patients have a higher risk of recurrence in our short interval follow-up,” Dr. Choong said during her presentation.

Patients’ median age was 55 years, and three-quarters of them were White. Their tumors were more likely to be HER2-negative (65%), PR-negative (73%), have higher Ki-67 expression, and have a higher clinical stage (73% grade III).

Forty-two percent of patients did not undergo AET as part of their treatment regimen, with various tumor factors seen associated with AET omission. At a median 3 years of follow-up, 586 patients had died. After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, tumor factors, and pathologic stage, the effect of omitting AET still resulted in significantly worse survival: (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.48, P = .01).

Mortality was driven by patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, who comprised nearly half the study cohort. In these patients, omission of endocrine therapy was associated with a 27% higher risk of death (HR 1.27, 1.10-1.58). However, for those with a complete pathological response following chemotherapy, omission of endocrine therapy was not associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.06; 0.62-1.80).

The investigators noted several limitations of their study, including a retrospective design and no information available on recurrence or the duration of endocrine therapy.
 

Why Is Endocrine Therapy So Frequently Omitted in This Patient Group?

Matthew P. Goetz, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that in Sweden, for example, ER-low patients are explicitly not offered endocrine therapy based on Swedish guidelines.

In other settings, he said, it is unclear what is happening.

“Are patients refusing it? Do physicians not even offer it because they think there is no value? We do not have that granular detail, but our data right now suggests a physician should be having this conversation with patients,” he said.
 

Which ER-Low Patients Are Likely To Benefit?

The findings apply mostly to patients with residual disease after chemotherapy, and underlying biological factors are likely the reason, Dr. Goetz said.

ER-low patients are a heterogeneous group, he explained.

“In genomic profiling, where we look at the underlying biology of these cancers, most of the ER-low cancers are considered the basal subtype of triple negative breast cancer. Those patients should have absolutely zero benefit from endocrine therapy. But there is another group, referred to as the luminal group, which comprises anywhere from 20% to 30% of the ER-low patients.”

Dr. Goetz said he expects to find that this latter group are the patients benefiting from endocrine therapy when they have residual disease.

“We are not yet at the point of saying to patients, ‘you have residual disease after chemotherapy. Let’s check your tumor to see if it is the basal or luminal subtype.’ But that is something that we are planning to look into. What is most important right now is that clinicians be aware of these data, and that there is a suggestion that omitting endocrine therapy may have detrimental effects on survival in this subgroup of patients.”
 

Are the Findings Compelling Enough To Change Clinical Practice Right Away?

In an interview about the findings, Eric Winer, MD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, cautioned that due to the retrospective study design, “we don’t know how doctors made decisions about who got endocrine therapy and who didn’t.”

The patients with the worst tumors tended not to get endocrine therapy, Dr. Winer noted, and despite attempts to adjust for this, “in any large data set like this, unlike in a randomized trial, you just can’t control for all the bias.”
 

What Should Doctors Tell Patients?

“In the setting of significant side effects from endocrine therapy, we’re still less certain about the benefits of endocrine therapy here than in somebody with an ER-high tumor,” Dr. Winer cautioned.

Nonetheless, he said, the new findings certainly suggest that there may be a benefit for endocrine therapy in patients with ER-low tumors, and doctors should make this known to patients. “It may not be the strongest evidence, but it’s evidence,” he said. “This is very much a question to be raised between the doctor and the patient.”

Dr. Choong and colleagues’ study was funded by a Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant. Dr. Goetz reported consulting fees and research support from pharmaceutical manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Choong and Dr. Winer reported no financial conflicts of interest.

For women with early-stage estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine therapy is known to decrease the likelihood of recurrence and improve survival, while omitting the therapy is associated with a higher risk of death.

For that reason, current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers.

But these and other guidelines do not make recommendations for a class of tumors deemed estrogen receptor low positive, often referred to as “ER-low,” a category in which ER is seen expressed in between 1% and 10% of cells. This is because benefits of endocrine therapy have not been demonstrated in patients with ER-low disease.

New research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago may change how clinicians and patients think about endocrine therapy. The findings showed that omitting endocrine therapy after surgery and chemotherapy was associated with a 25% higher chance of death within 3 years in ER-low patients.

Endocrine therapy, the investigators say, should therefore be offered to all patients with ER-low cancers, at least until it can be determined which subgroups are most likely to benefit.

How Was the Study Conducted?

Grace M. Choong, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and her colleagues, looked at 2018-2020 data from the National Cancer Database for more than 350,000 female patients with stages 1-3, ER+ breast cancer. From among these they identified about 7000 patients with ER-low cancers who had undergone adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

“We specifically wanted to focus on those treated with chemotherapy as these patients have a higher risk of recurrence in our short interval follow-up,” Dr. Choong said during her presentation.

Patients’ median age was 55 years, and three-quarters of them were White. Their tumors were more likely to be HER2-negative (65%), PR-negative (73%), have higher Ki-67 expression, and have a higher clinical stage (73% grade III).

Forty-two percent of patients did not undergo AET as part of their treatment regimen, with various tumor factors seen associated with AET omission. At a median 3 years of follow-up, 586 patients had died. After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, tumor factors, and pathologic stage, the effect of omitting AET still resulted in significantly worse survival: (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.48, P = .01).

Mortality was driven by patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, who comprised nearly half the study cohort. In these patients, omission of endocrine therapy was associated with a 27% higher risk of death (HR 1.27, 1.10-1.58). However, for those with a complete pathological response following chemotherapy, omission of endocrine therapy was not associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.06; 0.62-1.80).

The investigators noted several limitations of their study, including a retrospective design and no information available on recurrence or the duration of endocrine therapy.
 

Why Is Endocrine Therapy So Frequently Omitted in This Patient Group?

Matthew P. Goetz, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that in Sweden, for example, ER-low patients are explicitly not offered endocrine therapy based on Swedish guidelines.

In other settings, he said, it is unclear what is happening.

“Are patients refusing it? Do physicians not even offer it because they think there is no value? We do not have that granular detail, but our data right now suggests a physician should be having this conversation with patients,” he said.
 

Which ER-Low Patients Are Likely To Benefit?

The findings apply mostly to patients with residual disease after chemotherapy, and underlying biological factors are likely the reason, Dr. Goetz said.

ER-low patients are a heterogeneous group, he explained.

“In genomic profiling, where we look at the underlying biology of these cancers, most of the ER-low cancers are considered the basal subtype of triple negative breast cancer. Those patients should have absolutely zero benefit from endocrine therapy. But there is another group, referred to as the luminal group, which comprises anywhere from 20% to 30% of the ER-low patients.”

Dr. Goetz said he expects to find that this latter group are the patients benefiting from endocrine therapy when they have residual disease.

“We are not yet at the point of saying to patients, ‘you have residual disease after chemotherapy. Let’s check your tumor to see if it is the basal or luminal subtype.’ But that is something that we are planning to look into. What is most important right now is that clinicians be aware of these data, and that there is a suggestion that omitting endocrine therapy may have detrimental effects on survival in this subgroup of patients.”
 

Are the Findings Compelling Enough To Change Clinical Practice Right Away?

In an interview about the findings, Eric Winer, MD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, cautioned that due to the retrospective study design, “we don’t know how doctors made decisions about who got endocrine therapy and who didn’t.”

The patients with the worst tumors tended not to get endocrine therapy, Dr. Winer noted, and despite attempts to adjust for this, “in any large data set like this, unlike in a randomized trial, you just can’t control for all the bias.”
 

What Should Doctors Tell Patients?

“In the setting of significant side effects from endocrine therapy, we’re still less certain about the benefits of endocrine therapy here than in somebody with an ER-high tumor,” Dr. Winer cautioned.

Nonetheless, he said, the new findings certainly suggest that there may be a benefit for endocrine therapy in patients with ER-low tumors, and doctors should make this known to patients. “It may not be the strongest evidence, but it’s evidence,” he said. “This is very much a question to be raised between the doctor and the patient.”

Dr. Choong and colleagues’ study was funded by a Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant. Dr. Goetz reported consulting fees and research support from pharmaceutical manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Choong and Dr. Winer reported no financial conflicts of interest.

For women with early-stage estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine therapy is known to decrease the likelihood of recurrence and improve survival, while omitting the therapy is associated with a higher risk of death.

For that reason, current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers.

But these and other guidelines do not make recommendations for a class of tumors deemed estrogen receptor low positive, often referred to as “ER-low,” a category in which ER is seen expressed in between 1% and 10% of cells. This is because benefits of endocrine therapy have not been demonstrated in patients with ER-low disease.

New research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago may change how clinicians and patients think about endocrine therapy. The findings showed that omitting endocrine therapy after surgery and chemotherapy was associated with a 25% higher chance of death within 3 years in ER-low patients.

Endocrine therapy, the investigators say, should therefore be offered to all patients with ER-low cancers, at least until it can be determined which subgroups are most likely to benefit.

How Was the Study Conducted?

Grace M. Choong, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and her colleagues, looked at 2018-2020 data from the National Cancer Database for more than 350,000 female patients with stages 1-3, ER+ breast cancer. From among these they identified about 7000 patients with ER-low cancers who had undergone adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

“We specifically wanted to focus on those treated with chemotherapy as these patients have a higher risk of recurrence in our short interval follow-up,” Dr. Choong said during her presentation.

Patients’ median age was 55 years, and three-quarters of them were White. Their tumors were more likely to be HER2-negative (65%), PR-negative (73%), have higher Ki-67 expression, and have a higher clinical stage (73% grade III).

Forty-two percent of patients did not undergo AET as part of their treatment regimen, with various tumor factors seen associated with AET omission. At a median 3 years of follow-up, 586 patients had died. After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, tumor factors, and pathologic stage, the effect of omitting AET still resulted in significantly worse survival: (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.48, P = .01).

Mortality was driven by patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, who comprised nearly half the study cohort. In these patients, omission of endocrine therapy was associated with a 27% higher risk of death (HR 1.27, 1.10-1.58). However, for those with a complete pathological response following chemotherapy, omission of endocrine therapy was not associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.06; 0.62-1.80).

The investigators noted several limitations of their study, including a retrospective design and no information available on recurrence or the duration of endocrine therapy.
 

Why Is Endocrine Therapy So Frequently Omitted in This Patient Group?

Matthew P. Goetz, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that in Sweden, for example, ER-low patients are explicitly not offered endocrine therapy based on Swedish guidelines.

In other settings, he said, it is unclear what is happening.

“Are patients refusing it? Do physicians not even offer it because they think there is no value? We do not have that granular detail, but our data right now suggests a physician should be having this conversation with patients,” he said.
 

Which ER-Low Patients Are Likely To Benefit?

The findings apply mostly to patients with residual disease after chemotherapy, and underlying biological factors are likely the reason, Dr. Goetz said.

ER-low patients are a heterogeneous group, he explained.

“In genomic profiling, where we look at the underlying biology of these cancers, most of the ER-low cancers are considered the basal subtype of triple negative breast cancer. Those patients should have absolutely zero benefit from endocrine therapy. But there is another group, referred to as the luminal group, which comprises anywhere from 20% to 30% of the ER-low patients.”

Dr. Goetz said he expects to find that this latter group are the patients benefiting from endocrine therapy when they have residual disease.

“We are not yet at the point of saying to patients, ‘you have residual disease after chemotherapy. Let’s check your tumor to see if it is the basal or luminal subtype.’ But that is something that we are planning to look into. What is most important right now is that clinicians be aware of these data, and that there is a suggestion that omitting endocrine therapy may have detrimental effects on survival in this subgroup of patients.”
 

Are the Findings Compelling Enough To Change Clinical Practice Right Away?

In an interview about the findings, Eric Winer, MD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, cautioned that due to the retrospective study design, “we don’t know how doctors made decisions about who got endocrine therapy and who didn’t.”

The patients with the worst tumors tended not to get endocrine therapy, Dr. Winer noted, and despite attempts to adjust for this, “in any large data set like this, unlike in a randomized trial, you just can’t control for all the bias.”
 

What Should Doctors Tell Patients?

“In the setting of significant side effects from endocrine therapy, we’re still less certain about the benefits of endocrine therapy here than in somebody with an ER-high tumor,” Dr. Winer cautioned.

Nonetheless, he said, the new findings certainly suggest that there may be a benefit for endocrine therapy in patients with ER-low tumors, and doctors should make this known to patients. “It may not be the strongest evidence, but it’s evidence,” he said. “This is very much a question to be raised between the doctor and the patient.”

Dr. Choong and colleagues’ study was funded by a Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant. Dr. Goetz reported consulting fees and research support from pharmaceutical manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Choong and Dr. Winer reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Most younger women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer will succeed if they attempt to become pregnant after treatment, according to new research.

The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).

Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.

During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.

Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.

“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”

The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”

Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”

She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.

Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.

The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”

Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.

Most younger women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer will succeed if they attempt to become pregnant after treatment, according to new research.

The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).

Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.

During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.

Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.

“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”

The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”

Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”

She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.

Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.

The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”

Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.

Most younger women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer will succeed if they attempt to become pregnant after treatment, according to new research.

The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).

Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.

During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.

Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.

“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”

The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”

Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”

She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.

Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.

The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”

Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.