Conference Coverage

Savolitinib, a selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed good activity against locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing MET exon 14 mutations as both first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients and in second-line of therapy for previously treated patients

“The phase 3b study results further confirm savolitinib as a valuable targeted therapy option for naive and previously-treated non–small cell lung cancer with MET 14 exon mutations,” Yongchang Zhang, MD, said while presenting the final results of the trial at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024.

For 87 previously untreated patients the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent review, the primary endpoint, was 62.1%. For 79 patients receiving savolitinib in the second line, the ORR was 39.2%, reported Dr. Zhang, MD, of the Hunan Cancer Hospital in Changsha, China.

Preliminary results of this trial were reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in 2023.

Selective Inhibitor

Savolitinib (AZD6094, also called volitinib) is reported to be a highly selective oral inhibitor of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase (TKI). It is approved in China for the treatment of patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 mutations that has progressed on prior systemic therapy, or patients who are unable to tolerate platinum-based chemotherapy.

In the phase 3b study, patients with MET ex14-positive tumors who were negative for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alterations and were naive to a MET inhibitor were enrolled. Those who weighed 50 kg or greater received 600 mg savolitinib orally once daily for each 21-day cycle, while patients who weighed less than 50 kg received a 400-mg daily dose. Therapy continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.

Tumors were evaluated by investigators every 6 weeks for the first year, than every 12 weeks thereafter.

As noted before, ORR by independent review was 62.1% for treatment-naive patients and 39.2% for previously treated patients. The respective ORRs by investigator assessment were 59.8% and 43%. All responses in each arm were partial responses.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a median follow-up of 18 months for treatment-naive patients and 11 months for treatment-experienced patients was 13.7 months and 11 months, respectively.

Overall survival after a median follow-up of 20.8 months for treatment-naive patients and 12.5 months for previously treated patients was not reached in treatment-naive patients and not mature in treatment-experienced patients.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74.1% of patients, including 3 events (1.8%) leading to death. Dose modifications were required for 74.7% of patients.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included peripheral edema, liver enzyme elevations, abnormal liver function, decreased platelet and white blood cell counts, and vomiting.
 

Which TKI is Best?

Invited discussant Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, noted that eligibility for treatment with savolitinib or other MET exon 14-targeting TKIs is limited to about 3% of patients with NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology.

He said that savolitinib appears to be similar in performance to two other TKIs for NSCLC with MET exon-14 skipping mutations that are currently on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan: capmatinib (Tabrecta) and tepotinib (Tepmetko).

“Globally, all the results show a numerically better performance when we use a selective TKI in first-line treatment over the second-line treatment, in particular for overall response rate,” he said.

Dr. Passaro noted that savolitinib differs from the other two MET TKIs in that PFS with savolitinib is similar for treatment-naive and previously treated patients.

He added, however, that “today it’s very difficult” to determine which is the “perfect” agent for a specific disease presentation, particularly since MET exon 14 skipping mutations can also be found in patients with squamous cell carcinomas and those with a history of smoking.

To get a better sense of which drug to use in a specific situation, it would be helpful to analyze trial results in the context of tumor histology, smoking history, programmed death protein 1-ligand 1 status, and co-mutations, he said.

The study was sponsored by Hutchmed. Dr. Zhang reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Passaro reported a consulting, advisory, or speakers bureau role for multiple companies, not including Hutchmed.

Savolitinib, a selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed good activity against locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing MET exon 14 mutations as both first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients and in second-line of therapy for previously treated patients

“The phase 3b study results further confirm savolitinib as a valuable targeted therapy option for naive and previously-treated non–small cell lung cancer with MET 14 exon mutations,” Yongchang Zhang, MD, said while presenting the final results of the trial at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024.

For 87 previously untreated patients the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent review, the primary endpoint, was 62.1%. For 79 patients receiving savolitinib in the second line, the ORR was 39.2%, reported Dr. Zhang, MD, of the Hunan Cancer Hospital in Changsha, China.

Preliminary results of this trial were reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in 2023.

Selective Inhibitor

Savolitinib (AZD6094, also called volitinib) is reported to be a highly selective oral inhibitor of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase (TKI). It is approved in China for the treatment of patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 mutations that has progressed on prior systemic therapy, or patients who are unable to tolerate platinum-based chemotherapy.

In the phase 3b study, patients with MET ex14-positive tumors who were negative for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alterations and were naive to a MET inhibitor were enrolled. Those who weighed 50 kg or greater received 600 mg savolitinib orally once daily for each 21-day cycle, while patients who weighed less than 50 kg received a 400-mg daily dose. Therapy continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.

Tumors were evaluated by investigators every 6 weeks for the first year, than every 12 weeks thereafter.

As noted before, ORR by independent review was 62.1% for treatment-naive patients and 39.2% for previously treated patients. The respective ORRs by investigator assessment were 59.8% and 43%. All responses in each arm were partial responses.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a median follow-up of 18 months for treatment-naive patients and 11 months for treatment-experienced patients was 13.7 months and 11 months, respectively.

Overall survival after a median follow-up of 20.8 months for treatment-naive patients and 12.5 months for previously treated patients was not reached in treatment-naive patients and not mature in treatment-experienced patients.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74.1% of patients, including 3 events (1.8%) leading to death. Dose modifications were required for 74.7% of patients.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included peripheral edema, liver enzyme elevations, abnormal liver function, decreased platelet and white blood cell counts, and vomiting.
 

Which TKI is Best?

Invited discussant Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, noted that eligibility for treatment with savolitinib or other MET exon 14-targeting TKIs is limited to about 3% of patients with NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology.

He said that savolitinib appears to be similar in performance to two other TKIs for NSCLC with MET exon-14 skipping mutations that are currently on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan: capmatinib (Tabrecta) and tepotinib (Tepmetko).

“Globally, all the results show a numerically better performance when we use a selective TKI in first-line treatment over the second-line treatment, in particular for overall response rate,” he said.

Dr. Passaro noted that savolitinib differs from the other two MET TKIs in that PFS with savolitinib is similar for treatment-naive and previously treated patients.

He added, however, that “today it’s very difficult” to determine which is the “perfect” agent for a specific disease presentation, particularly since MET exon 14 skipping mutations can also be found in patients with squamous cell carcinomas and those with a history of smoking.

To get a better sense of which drug to use in a specific situation, it would be helpful to analyze trial results in the context of tumor histology, smoking history, programmed death protein 1-ligand 1 status, and co-mutations, he said.

The study was sponsored by Hutchmed. Dr. Zhang reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Passaro reported a consulting, advisory, or speakers bureau role for multiple companies, not including Hutchmed.

Savolitinib, a selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed good activity against locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing MET exon 14 mutations as both first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients and in second-line of therapy for previously treated patients

“The phase 3b study results further confirm savolitinib as a valuable targeted therapy option for naive and previously-treated non–small cell lung cancer with MET 14 exon mutations,” Yongchang Zhang, MD, said while presenting the final results of the trial at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024.

For 87 previously untreated patients the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent review, the primary endpoint, was 62.1%. For 79 patients receiving savolitinib in the second line, the ORR was 39.2%, reported Dr. Zhang, MD, of the Hunan Cancer Hospital in Changsha, China.

Preliminary results of this trial were reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in 2023.

Selective Inhibitor

Savolitinib (AZD6094, also called volitinib) is reported to be a highly selective oral inhibitor of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase (TKI). It is approved in China for the treatment of patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 mutations that has progressed on prior systemic therapy, or patients who are unable to tolerate platinum-based chemotherapy.

In the phase 3b study, patients with MET ex14-positive tumors who were negative for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alterations and were naive to a MET inhibitor were enrolled. Those who weighed 50 kg or greater received 600 mg savolitinib orally once daily for each 21-day cycle, while patients who weighed less than 50 kg received a 400-mg daily dose. Therapy continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.

Tumors were evaluated by investigators every 6 weeks for the first year, than every 12 weeks thereafter.

As noted before, ORR by independent review was 62.1% for treatment-naive patients and 39.2% for previously treated patients. The respective ORRs by investigator assessment were 59.8% and 43%. All responses in each arm were partial responses.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a median follow-up of 18 months for treatment-naive patients and 11 months for treatment-experienced patients was 13.7 months and 11 months, respectively.

Overall survival after a median follow-up of 20.8 months for treatment-naive patients and 12.5 months for previously treated patients was not reached in treatment-naive patients and not mature in treatment-experienced patients.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74.1% of patients, including 3 events (1.8%) leading to death. Dose modifications were required for 74.7% of patients.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included peripheral edema, liver enzyme elevations, abnormal liver function, decreased platelet and white blood cell counts, and vomiting.
 

Which TKI is Best?

Invited discussant Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, noted that eligibility for treatment with savolitinib or other MET exon 14-targeting TKIs is limited to about 3% of patients with NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology.

He said that savolitinib appears to be similar in performance to two other TKIs for NSCLC with MET exon-14 skipping mutations that are currently on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan: capmatinib (Tabrecta) and tepotinib (Tepmetko).

“Globally, all the results show a numerically better performance when we use a selective TKI in first-line treatment over the second-line treatment, in particular for overall response rate,” he said.

Dr. Passaro noted that savolitinib differs from the other two MET TKIs in that PFS with savolitinib is similar for treatment-naive and previously treated patients.

He added, however, that “today it’s very difficult” to determine which is the “perfect” agent for a specific disease presentation, particularly since MET exon 14 skipping mutations can also be found in patients with squamous cell carcinomas and those with a history of smoking.

To get a better sense of which drug to use in a specific situation, it would be helpful to analyze trial results in the context of tumor histology, smoking history, programmed death protein 1-ligand 1 status, and co-mutations, he said.

The study was sponsored by Hutchmed. Dr. Zhang reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Passaro reported a consulting, advisory, or speakers bureau role for multiple companies, not including Hutchmed.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognitive and memory problems, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues versus their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” said study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, Department of Neurology, Boston Medical Center.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase said.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in its latest statement on the topic, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognitive and memory problems, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues versus their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” said study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, Department of Neurology, Boston Medical Center.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase said.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in its latest statement on the topic, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognitive and memory problems, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues versus their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” said study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, Department of Neurology, Boston Medical Center.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase said.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in its latest statement on the topic, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

An experimental therapeutic DNA vaccine against human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) was safe and well tolerated, and successfully cleared the virus in a majority of patients with HPV16-positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3 in a phase I trial.

The vaccine, pNGVL4a-CRTE6E7L2, also showed signs of efficacy in patients living with HIV, reported Kimberly Lynn Levinson, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We demonstrated a 78% rate of clearance for both histologic regression and HPV16, with some clearance of other HPV types,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.

Further evaluation of the vaccine in vulvar, vaginal, and other tissue types is required, and evaluation of immune response at the local and systemic is ongoing, Dr. Levinson said.

In contrast to HPV16 prophylactic vaccines, which form an antibody-specific response to HPV, therapeutic vaccines elicit a cell-mediated immunity, primarily focusing on the virus’ E6 and E7 proteins.

There are currently only three Food and Drug Administration–approved therapeutic vaccines for cancer, but none are as yet approved for treatment of gynecologic malignancies.

According to the US National Institutes of Health, there are multiple therapeutic HPV vaccines in development using either vector-based, peptide and protein-based, or nucleic-acid based approaches, or whole cell (dendritic cell) approaches.
 

Current Study

Dr. Levinson noted that “DNA vaccines are both well tolerated and simple to produce, and the addition of calreticulin enhances immune response.”

The investigational vaccine is delivered via an electoporation device (TriGrid delivery system) that stimulates muscle at the injection site to produce an enhanced immune response.

In preclinical studies the device was associated with an enhanced immune response compared with standard intramuscular injection. The enhance immune effect persisted despite CD4 T cell depletion.

The investigators conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study, administering the vaccine to two separate cohorts: women without HIV who had HPV16-positive cervical dysplasia (CIN 2/3) and women living with HIV with HPV16-positive cervical or vulvovaginal dysplasia (CIN 2/3, VIN 2/3 or VAIN 2/3).

The vaccine was delivered at weeks 0, 4, and 8, at doses of 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg. At week 12, all patients underwent site-specific biopsy to verify non-progression.

At 6 months, the patients then underwent definitive treatment with either loop electro excision or vulvar/vaginal excision. At 12 months, all patients had standard evaluations with biopsies.

Dr. Levinson reported results for the first 14 women enrolled, 10 of whom were HIV-negative and 4 of whom were HIV-positive.

Of nine women in the HIV-negative arm who had completed 6-month visits and were evaluable, two had HPV16 clearance by 2-month follow-up, and seven had clearance at 6 months. Other HPV subtypes cleared in two of five patients at 3 months and in three of five at 6 months.

In addition, seven of nine patients in this arm had histologic regression at 6 months.

In the HIV-positive arm, the two patients with CIN had no HPV16 clearance at 3 months, but both had clearance at 16 months. The vaccine did not clear other HPV subtypes in these patients, however.

Of the two women in this arm who had VIN, one had HPV16 clearance and histologic regression at 6 months. The other patient had neither viral clearance nor histologic regression.

All participants tolerated each vaccine well. Adverse events were all grade 1 in severity and resolved within 4 weeks. The most common event was tenderness at the injection site. There were also three cases of mild headache, two cases of drowsiness, and one of nausea.
 

What’s Next?

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Ronald D. Alvarez, MD, MBA, chairman and clinical service chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, asked Dr. Levinson how the vaccine development will proceed.

“Obviously, you have more data to collect and analyze, but how are you going to move forward with what looks like equal efficacy between the 1 milligram and the 3 milligram doses? Are you just going to go with the maximum tolerated dose, or consider a lower dose if it shows equal efficacy in terms of histologic regression as well as HPV clearance?” he asked.

“This is something we’re very interested in, and we do plan for the dose-expansion phase to go with the higher dose,” Dr. Levinson replied. “We need to evaluate it further and we may need to do further randomization between the medium dose and the highest dose to determine if there are differences both with systemic and local responses.”

Robert DeBernardo, MD, section head of obstetrics and gynecology and the Women’s Health Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, asked whether Dr. Levinson and colleagues were considering evaluating the vaccine in transplant recipients, “because we have a lot of persistent HPV in that subgroup.”

Dr. Levinson said that one of the dose-expansion cohorts for further study is a population of patients scheduled for transplantation.

“What we’re interested in is looking at whether we can ‘cure’ HPV prior to transplantation, and we think that’s going to be the best way to show that this vaccine potentially eliminates the virus, because if we can eliminate the virus and then take a population that’s going to be immunodeficient, then that would show that there’s no reactivation of the virus,” she said.

The study is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levinson, Dr. Alvarez, and Dr. DeBernardo had no conflicts of interest to report.

An experimental therapeutic DNA vaccine against human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) was safe and well tolerated, and successfully cleared the virus in a majority of patients with HPV16-positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3 in a phase I trial.

The vaccine, pNGVL4a-CRTE6E7L2, also showed signs of efficacy in patients living with HIV, reported Kimberly Lynn Levinson, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We demonstrated a 78% rate of clearance for both histologic regression and HPV16, with some clearance of other HPV types,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.

Further evaluation of the vaccine in vulvar, vaginal, and other tissue types is required, and evaluation of immune response at the local and systemic is ongoing, Dr. Levinson said.

In contrast to HPV16 prophylactic vaccines, which form an antibody-specific response to HPV, therapeutic vaccines elicit a cell-mediated immunity, primarily focusing on the virus’ E6 and E7 proteins.

There are currently only three Food and Drug Administration–approved therapeutic vaccines for cancer, but none are as yet approved for treatment of gynecologic malignancies.

According to the US National Institutes of Health, there are multiple therapeutic HPV vaccines in development using either vector-based, peptide and protein-based, or nucleic-acid based approaches, or whole cell (dendritic cell) approaches.
 

Current Study

Dr. Levinson noted that “DNA vaccines are both well tolerated and simple to produce, and the addition of calreticulin enhances immune response.”

The investigational vaccine is delivered via an electoporation device (TriGrid delivery system) that stimulates muscle at the injection site to produce an enhanced immune response.

In preclinical studies the device was associated with an enhanced immune response compared with standard intramuscular injection. The enhance immune effect persisted despite CD4 T cell depletion.

The investigators conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study, administering the vaccine to two separate cohorts: women without HIV who had HPV16-positive cervical dysplasia (CIN 2/3) and women living with HIV with HPV16-positive cervical or vulvovaginal dysplasia (CIN 2/3, VIN 2/3 or VAIN 2/3).

The vaccine was delivered at weeks 0, 4, and 8, at doses of 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg. At week 12, all patients underwent site-specific biopsy to verify non-progression.

At 6 months, the patients then underwent definitive treatment with either loop electro excision or vulvar/vaginal excision. At 12 months, all patients had standard evaluations with biopsies.

Dr. Levinson reported results for the first 14 women enrolled, 10 of whom were HIV-negative and 4 of whom were HIV-positive.

Of nine women in the HIV-negative arm who had completed 6-month visits and were evaluable, two had HPV16 clearance by 2-month follow-up, and seven had clearance at 6 months. Other HPV subtypes cleared in two of five patients at 3 months and in three of five at 6 months.

In addition, seven of nine patients in this arm had histologic regression at 6 months.

In the HIV-positive arm, the two patients with CIN had no HPV16 clearance at 3 months, but both had clearance at 16 months. The vaccine did not clear other HPV subtypes in these patients, however.

Of the two women in this arm who had VIN, one had HPV16 clearance and histologic regression at 6 months. The other patient had neither viral clearance nor histologic regression.

All participants tolerated each vaccine well. Adverse events were all grade 1 in severity and resolved within 4 weeks. The most common event was tenderness at the injection site. There were also three cases of mild headache, two cases of drowsiness, and one of nausea.
 

What’s Next?

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Ronald D. Alvarez, MD, MBA, chairman and clinical service chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, asked Dr. Levinson how the vaccine development will proceed.

“Obviously, you have more data to collect and analyze, but how are you going to move forward with what looks like equal efficacy between the 1 milligram and the 3 milligram doses? Are you just going to go with the maximum tolerated dose, or consider a lower dose if it shows equal efficacy in terms of histologic regression as well as HPV clearance?” he asked.

“This is something we’re very interested in, and we do plan for the dose-expansion phase to go with the higher dose,” Dr. Levinson replied. “We need to evaluate it further and we may need to do further randomization between the medium dose and the highest dose to determine if there are differences both with systemic and local responses.”

Robert DeBernardo, MD, section head of obstetrics and gynecology and the Women’s Health Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, asked whether Dr. Levinson and colleagues were considering evaluating the vaccine in transplant recipients, “because we have a lot of persistent HPV in that subgroup.”

Dr. Levinson said that one of the dose-expansion cohorts for further study is a population of patients scheduled for transplantation.

“What we’re interested in is looking at whether we can ‘cure’ HPV prior to transplantation, and we think that’s going to be the best way to show that this vaccine potentially eliminates the virus, because if we can eliminate the virus and then take a population that’s going to be immunodeficient, then that would show that there’s no reactivation of the virus,” she said.

The study is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levinson, Dr. Alvarez, and Dr. DeBernardo had no conflicts of interest to report.

An experimental therapeutic DNA vaccine against human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) was safe and well tolerated, and successfully cleared the virus in a majority of patients with HPV16-positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3 in a phase I trial.

The vaccine, pNGVL4a-CRTE6E7L2, also showed signs of efficacy in patients living with HIV, reported Kimberly Lynn Levinson, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We demonstrated a 78% rate of clearance for both histologic regression and HPV16, with some clearance of other HPV types,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.

Further evaluation of the vaccine in vulvar, vaginal, and other tissue types is required, and evaluation of immune response at the local and systemic is ongoing, Dr. Levinson said.

In contrast to HPV16 prophylactic vaccines, which form an antibody-specific response to HPV, therapeutic vaccines elicit a cell-mediated immunity, primarily focusing on the virus’ E6 and E7 proteins.

There are currently only three Food and Drug Administration–approved therapeutic vaccines for cancer, but none are as yet approved for treatment of gynecologic malignancies.

According to the US National Institutes of Health, there are multiple therapeutic HPV vaccines in development using either vector-based, peptide and protein-based, or nucleic-acid based approaches, or whole cell (dendritic cell) approaches.
 

Current Study

Dr. Levinson noted that “DNA vaccines are both well tolerated and simple to produce, and the addition of calreticulin enhances immune response.”

The investigational vaccine is delivered via an electoporation device (TriGrid delivery system) that stimulates muscle at the injection site to produce an enhanced immune response.

In preclinical studies the device was associated with an enhanced immune response compared with standard intramuscular injection. The enhance immune effect persisted despite CD4 T cell depletion.

The investigators conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study, administering the vaccine to two separate cohorts: women without HIV who had HPV16-positive cervical dysplasia (CIN 2/3) and women living with HIV with HPV16-positive cervical or vulvovaginal dysplasia (CIN 2/3, VIN 2/3 or VAIN 2/3).

The vaccine was delivered at weeks 0, 4, and 8, at doses of 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg. At week 12, all patients underwent site-specific biopsy to verify non-progression.

At 6 months, the patients then underwent definitive treatment with either loop electro excision or vulvar/vaginal excision. At 12 months, all patients had standard evaluations with biopsies.

Dr. Levinson reported results for the first 14 women enrolled, 10 of whom were HIV-negative and 4 of whom were HIV-positive.

Of nine women in the HIV-negative arm who had completed 6-month visits and were evaluable, two had HPV16 clearance by 2-month follow-up, and seven had clearance at 6 months. Other HPV subtypes cleared in two of five patients at 3 months and in three of five at 6 months.

In addition, seven of nine patients in this arm had histologic regression at 6 months.

In the HIV-positive arm, the two patients with CIN had no HPV16 clearance at 3 months, but both had clearance at 16 months. The vaccine did not clear other HPV subtypes in these patients, however.

Of the two women in this arm who had VIN, one had HPV16 clearance and histologic regression at 6 months. The other patient had neither viral clearance nor histologic regression.

All participants tolerated each vaccine well. Adverse events were all grade 1 in severity and resolved within 4 weeks. The most common event was tenderness at the injection site. There were also three cases of mild headache, two cases of drowsiness, and one of nausea.
 

What’s Next?

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Ronald D. Alvarez, MD, MBA, chairman and clinical service chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, asked Dr. Levinson how the vaccine development will proceed.

“Obviously, you have more data to collect and analyze, but how are you going to move forward with what looks like equal efficacy between the 1 milligram and the 3 milligram doses? Are you just going to go with the maximum tolerated dose, or consider a lower dose if it shows equal efficacy in terms of histologic regression as well as HPV clearance?” he asked.

“This is something we’re very interested in, and we do plan for the dose-expansion phase to go with the higher dose,” Dr. Levinson replied. “We need to evaluate it further and we may need to do further randomization between the medium dose and the highest dose to determine if there are differences both with systemic and local responses.”

Robert DeBernardo, MD, section head of obstetrics and gynecology and the Women’s Health Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, asked whether Dr. Levinson and colleagues were considering evaluating the vaccine in transplant recipients, “because we have a lot of persistent HPV in that subgroup.”

Dr. Levinson said that one of the dose-expansion cohorts for further study is a population of patients scheduled for transplantation.

“What we’re interested in is looking at whether we can ‘cure’ HPV prior to transplantation, and we think that’s going to be the best way to show that this vaccine potentially eliminates the virus, because if we can eliminate the virus and then take a population that’s going to be immunodeficient, then that would show that there’s no reactivation of the virus,” she said.

The study is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levinson, Dr. Alvarez, and Dr. DeBernardo had no conflicts of interest to report.

Adding low-dose radiation to the current standard first-line treatment, durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, appears to improve survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), suggested new findings from a small, single-arm study.

The analysis, presented at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress, revealed that low-dose radiation improved patients’ median progression-free and overall survival compared with standard first-line treatment, reported in a 2019 trial, lead author Yan Zhang, MD, reported.

The standard first-line treatment results came from the 2019 CASPIAN trial, which found that patients receiving the first-line regimen had a median progression-free survival of 5 months and a median overall survival of 13 months, with 54% of patient alive at 1 year.

The latest data, which included a small cohort of 30 patients, revealed that adding low-dose radiation to the standard first-line therapy led to a higher median progression-free survival of 8.3 months and extended median overall survival beyond the study follow-up period of 17.3 months. Overall, 66% of patients were alive at 1 year.

These are “promising” improvements over CASPIAN, Dr. Zhang, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, said at the Congress, which was organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study discussant Gerry Hanna, PhD, MBBS, a radiation oncologist at Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, agreed. Although there were just 30 patients, “you cannot deny these are [strong] results in terms of extensive-stage small cell cancer,” Dr. Hanna said.

Although standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, the benefits aren’t durable for many patients.

This problem led Dr. Zhang and his colleagues to look for ways to improve outcomes. Because the CASPIAN trial did not include radiation to the primary tumor, it seemed a logical strategy to explore.

In the current single-arm study, Dr. Zhang and his team added 15 Gy radiation in five fractions to the primary lung tumors of 30 patients during the first cycle of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum.

Subjects received 1500 mg of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum every 3 weeks for four cycles. Low-dose radiation to the primary tumor was delivered over 5 days at the start of treatment. Patients then continued with durvalumab maintenance every 4 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity.

Six patients (20%) had liver metastases at the baseline, and three (10%) had brain metastases. Over half had prophylactic cranial radiation. Performance scores were 0-1, and all but one of the participants were men.

Six- and 12-month progression-free survival rates were 57% and 40%, respectively. Overall survival was 90% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months. Median overall survival was 13 months in the CASPIAN trial but not reached in Dr. Zhang’s trial after a median follow-up of 17.3 months, with the earliest deaths occurring at 10.8 months.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of patients, most frequently hematologic toxicities. Five patients (16.7%) had severe adverse reactions to radiation. Although the overall dose of radiation was low, at 3 Gy each, the fractions were on the large side.

Hanna wanted more information on the radiotoxicity issue, but even so, he said that adding low-dose radiation to our durvalumab-chemotherapy doublet warrants further investigation.

Both Dr. Hanna and Dr. Zhang thought that instead of killing cancer cells directly, the greatest benefit of upfront radiation, and the peritumoral inflammation it causes, is to augment durvalumab’s effect.

Overall, Dr. Hanna stressed that we haven’t had results like these before in a SCLC study, particularly for novel agents, let alone radiation.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Zhang and Dr. Hanna didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding low-dose radiation to the current standard first-line treatment, durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, appears to improve survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), suggested new findings from a small, single-arm study.

The analysis, presented at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress, revealed that low-dose radiation improved patients’ median progression-free and overall survival compared with standard first-line treatment, reported in a 2019 trial, lead author Yan Zhang, MD, reported.

The standard first-line treatment results came from the 2019 CASPIAN trial, which found that patients receiving the first-line regimen had a median progression-free survival of 5 months and a median overall survival of 13 months, with 54% of patient alive at 1 year.

The latest data, which included a small cohort of 30 patients, revealed that adding low-dose radiation to the standard first-line therapy led to a higher median progression-free survival of 8.3 months and extended median overall survival beyond the study follow-up period of 17.3 months. Overall, 66% of patients were alive at 1 year.

These are “promising” improvements over CASPIAN, Dr. Zhang, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, said at the Congress, which was organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study discussant Gerry Hanna, PhD, MBBS, a radiation oncologist at Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, agreed. Although there were just 30 patients, “you cannot deny these are [strong] results in terms of extensive-stage small cell cancer,” Dr. Hanna said.

Although standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, the benefits aren’t durable for many patients.

This problem led Dr. Zhang and his colleagues to look for ways to improve outcomes. Because the CASPIAN trial did not include radiation to the primary tumor, it seemed a logical strategy to explore.

In the current single-arm study, Dr. Zhang and his team added 15 Gy radiation in five fractions to the primary lung tumors of 30 patients during the first cycle of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum.

Subjects received 1500 mg of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum every 3 weeks for four cycles. Low-dose radiation to the primary tumor was delivered over 5 days at the start of treatment. Patients then continued with durvalumab maintenance every 4 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity.

Six patients (20%) had liver metastases at the baseline, and three (10%) had brain metastases. Over half had prophylactic cranial radiation. Performance scores were 0-1, and all but one of the participants were men.

Six- and 12-month progression-free survival rates were 57% and 40%, respectively. Overall survival was 90% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months. Median overall survival was 13 months in the CASPIAN trial but not reached in Dr. Zhang’s trial after a median follow-up of 17.3 months, with the earliest deaths occurring at 10.8 months.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of patients, most frequently hematologic toxicities. Five patients (16.7%) had severe adverse reactions to radiation. Although the overall dose of radiation was low, at 3 Gy each, the fractions were on the large side.

Hanna wanted more information on the radiotoxicity issue, but even so, he said that adding low-dose radiation to our durvalumab-chemotherapy doublet warrants further investigation.

Both Dr. Hanna and Dr. Zhang thought that instead of killing cancer cells directly, the greatest benefit of upfront radiation, and the peritumoral inflammation it causes, is to augment durvalumab’s effect.

Overall, Dr. Hanna stressed that we haven’t had results like these before in a SCLC study, particularly for novel agents, let alone radiation.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Zhang and Dr. Hanna didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding low-dose radiation to the current standard first-line treatment, durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, appears to improve survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), suggested new findings from a small, single-arm study.

The analysis, presented at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress, revealed that low-dose radiation improved patients’ median progression-free and overall survival compared with standard first-line treatment, reported in a 2019 trial, lead author Yan Zhang, MD, reported.

The standard first-line treatment results came from the 2019 CASPIAN trial, which found that patients receiving the first-line regimen had a median progression-free survival of 5 months and a median overall survival of 13 months, with 54% of patient alive at 1 year.

The latest data, which included a small cohort of 30 patients, revealed that adding low-dose radiation to the standard first-line therapy led to a higher median progression-free survival of 8.3 months and extended median overall survival beyond the study follow-up period of 17.3 months. Overall, 66% of patients were alive at 1 year.

These are “promising” improvements over CASPIAN, Dr. Zhang, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, said at the Congress, which was organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study discussant Gerry Hanna, PhD, MBBS, a radiation oncologist at Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, agreed. Although there were just 30 patients, “you cannot deny these are [strong] results in terms of extensive-stage small cell cancer,” Dr. Hanna said.

Although standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, the benefits aren’t durable for many patients.

This problem led Dr. Zhang and his colleagues to look for ways to improve outcomes. Because the CASPIAN trial did not include radiation to the primary tumor, it seemed a logical strategy to explore.

In the current single-arm study, Dr. Zhang and his team added 15 Gy radiation in five fractions to the primary lung tumors of 30 patients during the first cycle of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum.

Subjects received 1500 mg of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum every 3 weeks for four cycles. Low-dose radiation to the primary tumor was delivered over 5 days at the start of treatment. Patients then continued with durvalumab maintenance every 4 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity.

Six patients (20%) had liver metastases at the baseline, and three (10%) had brain metastases. Over half had prophylactic cranial radiation. Performance scores were 0-1, and all but one of the participants were men.

Six- and 12-month progression-free survival rates were 57% and 40%, respectively. Overall survival was 90% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months. Median overall survival was 13 months in the CASPIAN trial but not reached in Dr. Zhang’s trial after a median follow-up of 17.3 months, with the earliest deaths occurring at 10.8 months.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of patients, most frequently hematologic toxicities. Five patients (16.7%) had severe adverse reactions to radiation. Although the overall dose of radiation was low, at 3 Gy each, the fractions were on the large side.

Hanna wanted more information on the radiotoxicity issue, but even so, he said that adding low-dose radiation to our durvalumab-chemotherapy doublet warrants further investigation.

Both Dr. Hanna and Dr. Zhang thought that instead of killing cancer cells directly, the greatest benefit of upfront radiation, and the peritumoral inflammation it causes, is to augment durvalumab’s effect.

Overall, Dr. Hanna stressed that we haven’t had results like these before in a SCLC study, particularly for novel agents, let alone radiation.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Zhang and Dr. Hanna didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Just a day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) began, a study was published online in JAMA Dermatology, cautioning that most downloadable mobile apps driven by artificial intelligence (AI) for use in monitoring dermatologic conditions lack validation.

Not least of the problems among the 41 apps evaluated, the majority offered no supporting evidence, no information about whether the app performance had been validated, and no information about how user privacy would be managed, reported Shannon Wongvibulsin, MD, PhD, a resident in the dermatology program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her coauthors.

The findings from this report were also summarized in a poster at the AAD meeting, and the major themes were reiterated in several AAD symposia devoted to AI at the meeting. Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, was one of those who weighed in on the future of AI. Although she was the senior author of the report, she did not address the report or poster directly, but her presentation on the practical aspects of incorporating AI into dermatology practice revisited several of its themes. 

Of the different themes, perhaps the most important were the concept that the source of AI data matters and the point that practicing clinicians should be familiar with the data source.

To date, “there is not much transparency in what data AI models are using,” Dr. Rotemberg said at the meeting. Based on the expectation that dermatologists will be purchasing rather than developing their own AI-based systems, she reiterated more than once that “transparency of data is critical,” even if vendors are often reluctant to reveal how their proprietary systems have been developed.

Few Dermatology Apps Are Vetted for Accuracy

In the poster and in the more detailed JAMA Dermatology paper, Dr. Wongvibulsin and her coinvestigators evaluated direct-to-consumer downloadable apps that claim to help with the assessment and management of skin conditions. Very few provided any supporting evidence of accuracy or even information about how they functioned.

The 41 apps were drawn from more than 300 apps; the others were excluded for failing to meet such criteria as failing to employ AI, not being available in English, or not addressing clinical management of dermatologic diseases. Dr. Wongvibulsin pointed out that none of the apps had been granted regulatory approval even though only two provided a disclaimer to that effect.

In all, just 5 of the 41 provided supporting evidence from a peer-reviewed journal, and less than 40% were created with any input from a dermatologist, Dr. Wongvibulsin reported. The result is that the utility and accuracy of these apps were, for the most part, difficult to judge.

“At a minimum, app developers should provide details on what AI algorithms are used, what data sets were used for training, testing, and validation, whether there was any clinician input, whether there are any supporting publications, how user-submitted images are used, and if there are any measures used to ensure data privacy,” Dr. Wongvibulsin wrote in the poster.

For AI-based apps or systems designed for use by dermatologists, Dr. Rotemberg made similar assertions in her overview of what clinicians should be considering for proprietary AI systems, whether to help with diagnosis or improve office efficiency.
 

Only One Dermatology App Cleared By the FDA

Currently, the only FDA-cleared app for dermatologic use is the DermaSensor, an AI-driven device. It was cleared for use in January 2024 for the evaluation of skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and/or squamous cell carcinoma in patients aged ≥ 40 years “to assist health care providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist,” according to an FDA announcement.

Using elastic scattering spectroscopy to analyze light reflecting off the skin to detect malignancy, the manufacturer’s promotional material claims a 96% sensitivity and a 97% specificity. 

While Dr. Rotemberg did not comment on these claims, she cautioned that AI models differ with regards to how they were trained and the relative heterogeneity of the training dataset defined by types of patients, types of skin, and types of AI learning processes. All of these variables are relevant in whether the AI will perform in a given clinical setting at the level it performed during development.

“The most accurate models employ narrow datasets, but these do not necessarily mimic what we see in practice,” she said.

In addition, even when an AI-based system is working for a given task, it must be monitored over time. Dr. Rotemberg warned about the potential for “data drift,” which describes the slow evolution in how diseases present, their prevalence by age, or other factors that might affect AI performance. She explained that repeated validation is needed to ensure that the AI-based models remain as accurate over time as they were when first used.

Many of these concepts were explored in a consensus statement from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration AI Working Group, published in JAMA Dermatology in December 2021. The statement, of which Dr. Rotemberg was a coauthor, provided recommendations for the principles of AI algorithm development specific to dermatologic considerations.

At the AAD symposium, Dr. Rotemberg asked the audience for suggestions about the needs they hoped AI might address for in office care or efficiency. Their responses included generating prior authorizations for prescriptions, triaging email for importance, and helping to improve efficiency for common front desk tasks. She liked all of these suggestions, but she warned that as powerful as it can be, AI is not likely to provide technology that will fit seamlessly into workflows without adjustment.

“Our current systems do not allow human integration of AI models,” Dr. Rotemberg said. Rather than counting on AI to adapt to current practices, she cautioned that “we may have to redesign our entire structure to actually be able to accommodate AI-based” systems. The risk for users is tasks that become more challenging before they become easier. 

AI Should Not Be a Black Box

AI is promising, but it is not magic, according to other investigators, including Tofunmi A. Omiye, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in dermatology at Stanford University, California. First author of a recent review of AI in dermatology published in Frontiers in Medicine, Dr. Omiye agreed that clinicians who want to employ AI should be able to understand basic principles if they want the technology to perform as expected.

“I totally agree that physicians should at least have a basic understanding of the data sources for training AI models as we have found that to be important to the performance of these models in the clinical setting,” he told this news organization.

“Beyond understanding the data sources, I believe physicians can also try to have a comprehensive understanding of what AI means, its training process, and evaluation as this will help them to evaluate its utility in their practice,” he added. He also reinforced the relevance of data drift.

“Concepts like distribution shift — where models perform less well over time due to changes in the patient population — are also important to keep in mind,” Dr. Omiye said.

Dr. Wongvibulsin, Dr. Rotemberg, and Dr. Omiye reported no potential financial conflicts of interest relevant to this topic. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — Just a day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) began, a study was published online in JAMA Dermatology, cautioning that most downloadable mobile apps driven by artificial intelligence (AI) for use in monitoring dermatologic conditions lack validation.

Not least of the problems among the 41 apps evaluated, the majority offered no supporting evidence, no information about whether the app performance had been validated, and no information about how user privacy would be managed, reported Shannon Wongvibulsin, MD, PhD, a resident in the dermatology program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her coauthors.

The findings from this report were also summarized in a poster at the AAD meeting, and the major themes were reiterated in several AAD symposia devoted to AI at the meeting. Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, was one of those who weighed in on the future of AI. Although she was the senior author of the report, she did not address the report or poster directly, but her presentation on the practical aspects of incorporating AI into dermatology practice revisited several of its themes. 

Of the different themes, perhaps the most important were the concept that the source of AI data matters and the point that practicing clinicians should be familiar with the data source.

To date, “there is not much transparency in what data AI models are using,” Dr. Rotemberg said at the meeting. Based on the expectation that dermatologists will be purchasing rather than developing their own AI-based systems, she reiterated more than once that “transparency of data is critical,” even if vendors are often reluctant to reveal how their proprietary systems have been developed.

Few Dermatology Apps Are Vetted for Accuracy

In the poster and in the more detailed JAMA Dermatology paper, Dr. Wongvibulsin and her coinvestigators evaluated direct-to-consumer downloadable apps that claim to help with the assessment and management of skin conditions. Very few provided any supporting evidence of accuracy or even information about how they functioned.

The 41 apps were drawn from more than 300 apps; the others were excluded for failing to meet such criteria as failing to employ AI, not being available in English, or not addressing clinical management of dermatologic diseases. Dr. Wongvibulsin pointed out that none of the apps had been granted regulatory approval even though only two provided a disclaimer to that effect.

In all, just 5 of the 41 provided supporting evidence from a peer-reviewed journal, and less than 40% were created with any input from a dermatologist, Dr. Wongvibulsin reported. The result is that the utility and accuracy of these apps were, for the most part, difficult to judge.

“At a minimum, app developers should provide details on what AI algorithms are used, what data sets were used for training, testing, and validation, whether there was any clinician input, whether there are any supporting publications, how user-submitted images are used, and if there are any measures used to ensure data privacy,” Dr. Wongvibulsin wrote in the poster.

For AI-based apps or systems designed for use by dermatologists, Dr. Rotemberg made similar assertions in her overview of what clinicians should be considering for proprietary AI systems, whether to help with diagnosis or improve office efficiency.
 

Only One Dermatology App Cleared By the FDA

Currently, the only FDA-cleared app for dermatologic use is the DermaSensor, an AI-driven device. It was cleared for use in January 2024 for the evaluation of skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and/or squamous cell carcinoma in patients aged ≥ 40 years “to assist health care providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist,” according to an FDA announcement.

Using elastic scattering spectroscopy to analyze light reflecting off the skin to detect malignancy, the manufacturer’s promotional material claims a 96% sensitivity and a 97% specificity. 

While Dr. Rotemberg did not comment on these claims, she cautioned that AI models differ with regards to how they were trained and the relative heterogeneity of the training dataset defined by types of patients, types of skin, and types of AI learning processes. All of these variables are relevant in whether the AI will perform in a given clinical setting at the level it performed during development.

“The most accurate models employ narrow datasets, but these do not necessarily mimic what we see in practice,” she said.

In addition, even when an AI-based system is working for a given task, it must be monitored over time. Dr. Rotemberg warned about the potential for “data drift,” which describes the slow evolution in how diseases present, their prevalence by age, or other factors that might affect AI performance. She explained that repeated validation is needed to ensure that the AI-based models remain as accurate over time as they were when first used.

Many of these concepts were explored in a consensus statement from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration AI Working Group, published in JAMA Dermatology in December 2021. The statement, of which Dr. Rotemberg was a coauthor, provided recommendations for the principles of AI algorithm development specific to dermatologic considerations.

At the AAD symposium, Dr. Rotemberg asked the audience for suggestions about the needs they hoped AI might address for in office care or efficiency. Their responses included generating prior authorizations for prescriptions, triaging email for importance, and helping to improve efficiency for common front desk tasks. She liked all of these suggestions, but she warned that as powerful as it can be, AI is not likely to provide technology that will fit seamlessly into workflows without adjustment.

“Our current systems do not allow human integration of AI models,” Dr. Rotemberg said. Rather than counting on AI to adapt to current practices, she cautioned that “we may have to redesign our entire structure to actually be able to accommodate AI-based” systems. The risk for users is tasks that become more challenging before they become easier. 

AI Should Not Be a Black Box

AI is promising, but it is not magic, according to other investigators, including Tofunmi A. Omiye, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in dermatology at Stanford University, California. First author of a recent review of AI in dermatology published in Frontiers in Medicine, Dr. Omiye agreed that clinicians who want to employ AI should be able to understand basic principles if they want the technology to perform as expected.

“I totally agree that physicians should at least have a basic understanding of the data sources for training AI models as we have found that to be important to the performance of these models in the clinical setting,” he told this news organization.

“Beyond understanding the data sources, I believe physicians can also try to have a comprehensive understanding of what AI means, its training process, and evaluation as this will help them to evaluate its utility in their practice,” he added. He also reinforced the relevance of data drift.

“Concepts like distribution shift — where models perform less well over time due to changes in the patient population — are also important to keep in mind,” Dr. Omiye said.

Dr. Wongvibulsin, Dr. Rotemberg, and Dr. Omiye reported no potential financial conflicts of interest relevant to this topic. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — Just a day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) began, a study was published online in JAMA Dermatology, cautioning that most downloadable mobile apps driven by artificial intelligence (AI) for use in monitoring dermatologic conditions lack validation.

Not least of the problems among the 41 apps evaluated, the majority offered no supporting evidence, no information about whether the app performance had been validated, and no information about how user privacy would be managed, reported Shannon Wongvibulsin, MD, PhD, a resident in the dermatology program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her coauthors.

The findings from this report were also summarized in a poster at the AAD meeting, and the major themes were reiterated in several AAD symposia devoted to AI at the meeting. Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, was one of those who weighed in on the future of AI. Although she was the senior author of the report, she did not address the report or poster directly, but her presentation on the practical aspects of incorporating AI into dermatology practice revisited several of its themes. 

Of the different themes, perhaps the most important were the concept that the source of AI data matters and the point that practicing clinicians should be familiar with the data source.

To date, “there is not much transparency in what data AI models are using,” Dr. Rotemberg said at the meeting. Based on the expectation that dermatologists will be purchasing rather than developing their own AI-based systems, she reiterated more than once that “transparency of data is critical,” even if vendors are often reluctant to reveal how their proprietary systems have been developed.

Few Dermatology Apps Are Vetted for Accuracy

In the poster and in the more detailed JAMA Dermatology paper, Dr. Wongvibulsin and her coinvestigators evaluated direct-to-consumer downloadable apps that claim to help with the assessment and management of skin conditions. Very few provided any supporting evidence of accuracy or even information about how they functioned.

The 41 apps were drawn from more than 300 apps; the others were excluded for failing to meet such criteria as failing to employ AI, not being available in English, or not addressing clinical management of dermatologic diseases. Dr. Wongvibulsin pointed out that none of the apps had been granted regulatory approval even though only two provided a disclaimer to that effect.

In all, just 5 of the 41 provided supporting evidence from a peer-reviewed journal, and less than 40% were created with any input from a dermatologist, Dr. Wongvibulsin reported. The result is that the utility and accuracy of these apps were, for the most part, difficult to judge.

“At a minimum, app developers should provide details on what AI algorithms are used, what data sets were used for training, testing, and validation, whether there was any clinician input, whether there are any supporting publications, how user-submitted images are used, and if there are any measures used to ensure data privacy,” Dr. Wongvibulsin wrote in the poster.

For AI-based apps or systems designed for use by dermatologists, Dr. Rotemberg made similar assertions in her overview of what clinicians should be considering for proprietary AI systems, whether to help with diagnosis or improve office efficiency.
 

Only One Dermatology App Cleared By the FDA

Currently, the only FDA-cleared app for dermatologic use is the DermaSensor, an AI-driven device. It was cleared for use in January 2024 for the evaluation of skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and/or squamous cell carcinoma in patients aged ≥ 40 years “to assist health care providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist,” according to an FDA announcement.

Using elastic scattering spectroscopy to analyze light reflecting off the skin to detect malignancy, the manufacturer’s promotional material claims a 96% sensitivity and a 97% specificity. 

While Dr. Rotemberg did not comment on these claims, she cautioned that AI models differ with regards to how they were trained and the relative heterogeneity of the training dataset defined by types of patients, types of skin, and types of AI learning processes. All of these variables are relevant in whether the AI will perform in a given clinical setting at the level it performed during development.

“The most accurate models employ narrow datasets, but these do not necessarily mimic what we see in practice,” she said.

In addition, even when an AI-based system is working for a given task, it must be monitored over time. Dr. Rotemberg warned about the potential for “data drift,” which describes the slow evolution in how diseases present, their prevalence by age, or other factors that might affect AI performance. She explained that repeated validation is needed to ensure that the AI-based models remain as accurate over time as they were when first used.

Many of these concepts were explored in a consensus statement from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration AI Working Group, published in JAMA Dermatology in December 2021. The statement, of which Dr. Rotemberg was a coauthor, provided recommendations for the principles of AI algorithm development specific to dermatologic considerations.

At the AAD symposium, Dr. Rotemberg asked the audience for suggestions about the needs they hoped AI might address for in office care or efficiency. Their responses included generating prior authorizations for prescriptions, triaging email for importance, and helping to improve efficiency for common front desk tasks. She liked all of these suggestions, but she warned that as powerful as it can be, AI is not likely to provide technology that will fit seamlessly into workflows without adjustment.

“Our current systems do not allow human integration of AI models,” Dr. Rotemberg said. Rather than counting on AI to adapt to current practices, she cautioned that “we may have to redesign our entire structure to actually be able to accommodate AI-based” systems. The risk for users is tasks that become more challenging before they become easier. 

AI Should Not Be a Black Box

AI is promising, but it is not magic, according to other investigators, including Tofunmi A. Omiye, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in dermatology at Stanford University, California. First author of a recent review of AI in dermatology published in Frontiers in Medicine, Dr. Omiye agreed that clinicians who want to employ AI should be able to understand basic principles if they want the technology to perform as expected.

“I totally agree that physicians should at least have a basic understanding of the data sources for training AI models as we have found that to be important to the performance of these models in the clinical setting,” he told this news organization.

“Beyond understanding the data sources, I believe physicians can also try to have a comprehensive understanding of what AI means, its training process, and evaluation as this will help them to evaluate its utility in their practice,” he added. He also reinforced the relevance of data drift.

“Concepts like distribution shift — where models perform less well over time due to changes in the patient population — are also important to keep in mind,” Dr. Omiye said.

Dr. Wongvibulsin, Dr. Rotemberg, and Dr. Omiye reported no potential financial conflicts of interest relevant to this topic. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — Nemolizumab, the first-in-class inhibitor of interleukin-31 (IL-31), a neuroimmune cytokine linked to the promotion of pruritus and inflammation, continues to show good efficacy and safety for prurigo nodularis in an open-label follow-up pivotal trial following patients out to 52 weeks.

The OLYMPIA 2 trial, published just a few months ago, was positive for the primary endpoint of itch, and the 52-week data show “on-going improvement” not just in this key symptom but in the resolution of skin lesions, according to Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the itch center and associate professor of dermatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

The drug, which was found well tolerated in the double-blind OLYMPIA 2 study at 16 weeks, has not been associated with any new adverse events (AEs) in follow-up so far, according to Dr. Kwatra, who presented these findings in a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

The promise of an anti-IL-31 drug for sustained control of itch and inflammation was further supported by a separate late breaker on long-term maintenance data on nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).
 

New Prurigo Nodularis Therapies Needed

For prurigo nodularis, excitement about a new therapy is particularly warranted, according to Dr. Kwatra. Current treatment options, such as steroids and antihistamines, are neither well-tolerated nor particularly effective in most patients. He indicated that the very positive interim 52-week data from the ongoing open-label extension suggests that nemolizumab might be an important step forward for patients with this disease.

The interim 52-week analysis included 307 patients on continuous nemolizumab and 174 patients randomized previously to placebo and were nemolizumab-naive when they entered the open-label extension. Participants were drawn from the phase 3 trial as well as an earlier phase 2 study. Nemolizumab in all patients was delivered at a subcutaneous dose of 45 mg every 4 weeks.

Pointing out that the 2024 AAD annual meeting, with more than 19,000 attendees, “was the largest dermatology conference in the history of the world,” he added that his late-breaker results represent “the largest prurigo nodularis clinical study in the history of the world.”

At 52 weeks, 89.9% and 83.3% of those on continuous nemolizumab and those switched to nemolizumab, respectively, had achieved at least a 4-point reduction from baseline on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), which has a range from 0 to 10.

Approximately two thirds of patients (67.8% and 64.4%, respectively) had a weekly average peak NRS of ≤ 2, meaning they were free or almost free of itch. The improvement in a sleep index and in quality of life as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index closely followed the relief of itch with the large gains achieved within weeks of initiating treatment continuing on an upward slope at 52 weeks.

Over this time, lesions were also resolving. By week 52, healing of more than 75% of lesions had been achieved by 79.1% in both those on continuous nemolizumab and those who had been switched to nemolizumab. The rate of response was again about two thirds for those with lesion resolution considered clear or almost clear by the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response.
 

No Serious AEs Over Extended Follow-Up

With a mean duration of 388 days follow-up, there were no serious AEs that were clearly treatment related, but Dr. Kwatra did report that some patients developed mild eczematous lesions that typically responded to topical therapy. He also reported that asthma, particularly worsening asthma in patients already diagnosed with this disease, was seen in a small proportion of patients. Both were considered manageable, and no patients discontinued therapy because of these events, Dr. Kwatra said.

While further follow-up is planned, “we have never seen data in a prurigo nodularis [treatment trial] past 6 months,” he pointed out. For a challenging disease with a major adverse effect on quality of life, nemolizumab, if approved, will offer an important option for a difficult disease, he added.

Itch Improves in Patients with AD

Further support for the long-term safety of nemolizumab and its efficacy against itch was provided by another phase 3 extension study conducted in the treatment of AD. These long-term extension results were also presented in a late breaker session at the AAD meeting.

Evaluating maintenance data from responders, defined as a 75% reduction lesions on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) or as clear or almost clear skin on IGA at the end of the randomized ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, there were 169 patients on every 4-week nemolizumab, 169 patients on every 8-week nemolizumab, and 169 patients on every 4-week placebo.

For pruritus, a ≥ 4 point NRS reduction was achieved at week 48 in 76.2% of those on the every 4-week dose, 59.7% of those on the every 8-week dose, and 41% on those on placebo, reported Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Department of Dermatology, George Washington School of Medicine, Washington.

These not only represented sustained responses over the course of 48 weeks, but there was a gradual rise in this rate of success from baseline in the higher dose group. For a NRS score of ≤ 2, meaning no itch or almost no itch, the proportions were 64.9%, 52.9%, and 31.3%, respectively. These were accompanied by sustained responses in IGA and EASI-75 scores.

Overall, there was a “nice durability of response” over the maintenance period, with no new or dose-related safety signals, according to Dr. Silverberg. He pointed out that the every 8-week dose response was lower than every 4-week dose response, but “it looks very good” in regard to response and duration of response, “suggesting that this might be an option for a large subset of patients.”

Andrew Blauvelt, MD, an investigator with Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, Oregon, cautioned that despite the promise, dermatologists “might need help” in understanding this new agent and using it appropriately. He pointed out that it employs a new mechanism of action, and it has “a couple of new twists that we have not seen with other drugs,” including its association with worsening asthma.

Noting that asthma exacerbation has been reported in a proportion of treated patients approaching 4%, he expressed concern “that this is not rare.” He also expressed concern about reports of peripheral edema and asked Dr. Kwatra specifically how this should be handled in the routine clinical setting.

Pointing out that the 1% of new cases of asthma in the nemolizumab arm was, in fact, lower than the rate of new cases in the placebo arm, Dr. Kwatra said that there have been cases of increased asthma symptoms in patients with existing disease. However, he added that this and the reports of peripheral edema, some of which appear to be simply associated with prurigo nodularis, typically resolve with routine interventions. He said, however, that these side effects represent legitimate concerns that clinicians should consider, but he indicated that they do not appear to be a threat to the benefit-to-risk ratio of this agent.

In February 2024, the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency accepted submissions for nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis and AD, according to Galderma, the company developing nemolizumab.

Dr. Kwatra reported a financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, which sponsored the nemolizumab trials. Dr. Silverberg reported financial relationships with more than 35 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma. Dr. Blauvelt reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Nemolizumab, the first-in-class inhibitor of interleukin-31 (IL-31), a neuroimmune cytokine linked to the promotion of pruritus and inflammation, continues to show good efficacy and safety for prurigo nodularis in an open-label follow-up pivotal trial following patients out to 52 weeks.

The OLYMPIA 2 trial, published just a few months ago, was positive for the primary endpoint of itch, and the 52-week data show “on-going improvement” not just in this key symptom but in the resolution of skin lesions, according to Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the itch center and associate professor of dermatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

The drug, which was found well tolerated in the double-blind OLYMPIA 2 study at 16 weeks, has not been associated with any new adverse events (AEs) in follow-up so far, according to Dr. Kwatra, who presented these findings in a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

The promise of an anti-IL-31 drug for sustained control of itch and inflammation was further supported by a separate late breaker on long-term maintenance data on nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).
 

New Prurigo Nodularis Therapies Needed

For prurigo nodularis, excitement about a new therapy is particularly warranted, according to Dr. Kwatra. Current treatment options, such as steroids and antihistamines, are neither well-tolerated nor particularly effective in most patients. He indicated that the very positive interim 52-week data from the ongoing open-label extension suggests that nemolizumab might be an important step forward for patients with this disease.

The interim 52-week analysis included 307 patients on continuous nemolizumab and 174 patients randomized previously to placebo and were nemolizumab-naive when they entered the open-label extension. Participants were drawn from the phase 3 trial as well as an earlier phase 2 study. Nemolizumab in all patients was delivered at a subcutaneous dose of 45 mg every 4 weeks.

Pointing out that the 2024 AAD annual meeting, with more than 19,000 attendees, “was the largest dermatology conference in the history of the world,” he added that his late-breaker results represent “the largest prurigo nodularis clinical study in the history of the world.”

At 52 weeks, 89.9% and 83.3% of those on continuous nemolizumab and those switched to nemolizumab, respectively, had achieved at least a 4-point reduction from baseline on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), which has a range from 0 to 10.

Approximately two thirds of patients (67.8% and 64.4%, respectively) had a weekly average peak NRS of ≤ 2, meaning they were free or almost free of itch. The improvement in a sleep index and in quality of life as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index closely followed the relief of itch with the large gains achieved within weeks of initiating treatment continuing on an upward slope at 52 weeks.

Over this time, lesions were also resolving. By week 52, healing of more than 75% of lesions had been achieved by 79.1% in both those on continuous nemolizumab and those who had been switched to nemolizumab. The rate of response was again about two thirds for those with lesion resolution considered clear or almost clear by the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response.
 

No Serious AEs Over Extended Follow-Up

With a mean duration of 388 days follow-up, there were no serious AEs that were clearly treatment related, but Dr. Kwatra did report that some patients developed mild eczematous lesions that typically responded to topical therapy. He also reported that asthma, particularly worsening asthma in patients already diagnosed with this disease, was seen in a small proportion of patients. Both were considered manageable, and no patients discontinued therapy because of these events, Dr. Kwatra said.

While further follow-up is planned, “we have never seen data in a prurigo nodularis [treatment trial] past 6 months,” he pointed out. For a challenging disease with a major adverse effect on quality of life, nemolizumab, if approved, will offer an important option for a difficult disease, he added.

Itch Improves in Patients with AD

Further support for the long-term safety of nemolizumab and its efficacy against itch was provided by another phase 3 extension study conducted in the treatment of AD. These long-term extension results were also presented in a late breaker session at the AAD meeting.

Evaluating maintenance data from responders, defined as a 75% reduction lesions on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) or as clear or almost clear skin on IGA at the end of the randomized ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, there were 169 patients on every 4-week nemolizumab, 169 patients on every 8-week nemolizumab, and 169 patients on every 4-week placebo.

For pruritus, a ≥ 4 point NRS reduction was achieved at week 48 in 76.2% of those on the every 4-week dose, 59.7% of those on the every 8-week dose, and 41% on those on placebo, reported Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Department of Dermatology, George Washington School of Medicine, Washington.

These not only represented sustained responses over the course of 48 weeks, but there was a gradual rise in this rate of success from baseline in the higher dose group. For a NRS score of ≤ 2, meaning no itch or almost no itch, the proportions were 64.9%, 52.9%, and 31.3%, respectively. These were accompanied by sustained responses in IGA and EASI-75 scores.

Overall, there was a “nice durability of response” over the maintenance period, with no new or dose-related safety signals, according to Dr. Silverberg. He pointed out that the every 8-week dose response was lower than every 4-week dose response, but “it looks very good” in regard to response and duration of response, “suggesting that this might be an option for a large subset of patients.”

Andrew Blauvelt, MD, an investigator with Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, Oregon, cautioned that despite the promise, dermatologists “might need help” in understanding this new agent and using it appropriately. He pointed out that it employs a new mechanism of action, and it has “a couple of new twists that we have not seen with other drugs,” including its association with worsening asthma.

Noting that asthma exacerbation has been reported in a proportion of treated patients approaching 4%, he expressed concern “that this is not rare.” He also expressed concern about reports of peripheral edema and asked Dr. Kwatra specifically how this should be handled in the routine clinical setting.

Pointing out that the 1% of new cases of asthma in the nemolizumab arm was, in fact, lower than the rate of new cases in the placebo arm, Dr. Kwatra said that there have been cases of increased asthma symptoms in patients with existing disease. However, he added that this and the reports of peripheral edema, some of which appear to be simply associated with prurigo nodularis, typically resolve with routine interventions. He said, however, that these side effects represent legitimate concerns that clinicians should consider, but he indicated that they do not appear to be a threat to the benefit-to-risk ratio of this agent.

In February 2024, the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency accepted submissions for nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis and AD, according to Galderma, the company developing nemolizumab.

Dr. Kwatra reported a financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, which sponsored the nemolizumab trials. Dr. Silverberg reported financial relationships with more than 35 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma. Dr. Blauvelt reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Nemolizumab, the first-in-class inhibitor of interleukin-31 (IL-31), a neuroimmune cytokine linked to the promotion of pruritus and inflammation, continues to show good efficacy and safety for prurigo nodularis in an open-label follow-up pivotal trial following patients out to 52 weeks.

The OLYMPIA 2 trial, published just a few months ago, was positive for the primary endpoint of itch, and the 52-week data show “on-going improvement” not just in this key symptom but in the resolution of skin lesions, according to Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the itch center and associate professor of dermatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

The drug, which was found well tolerated in the double-blind OLYMPIA 2 study at 16 weeks, has not been associated with any new adverse events (AEs) in follow-up so far, according to Dr. Kwatra, who presented these findings in a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

The promise of an anti-IL-31 drug for sustained control of itch and inflammation was further supported by a separate late breaker on long-term maintenance data on nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).
 

New Prurigo Nodularis Therapies Needed

For prurigo nodularis, excitement about a new therapy is particularly warranted, according to Dr. Kwatra. Current treatment options, such as steroids and antihistamines, are neither well-tolerated nor particularly effective in most patients. He indicated that the very positive interim 52-week data from the ongoing open-label extension suggests that nemolizumab might be an important step forward for patients with this disease.

The interim 52-week analysis included 307 patients on continuous nemolizumab and 174 patients randomized previously to placebo and were nemolizumab-naive when they entered the open-label extension. Participants were drawn from the phase 3 trial as well as an earlier phase 2 study. Nemolizumab in all patients was delivered at a subcutaneous dose of 45 mg every 4 weeks.

Pointing out that the 2024 AAD annual meeting, with more than 19,000 attendees, “was the largest dermatology conference in the history of the world,” he added that his late-breaker results represent “the largest prurigo nodularis clinical study in the history of the world.”

At 52 weeks, 89.9% and 83.3% of those on continuous nemolizumab and those switched to nemolizumab, respectively, had achieved at least a 4-point reduction from baseline on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), which has a range from 0 to 10.

Approximately two thirds of patients (67.8% and 64.4%, respectively) had a weekly average peak NRS of ≤ 2, meaning they were free or almost free of itch. The improvement in a sleep index and in quality of life as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index closely followed the relief of itch with the large gains achieved within weeks of initiating treatment continuing on an upward slope at 52 weeks.

Over this time, lesions were also resolving. By week 52, healing of more than 75% of lesions had been achieved by 79.1% in both those on continuous nemolizumab and those who had been switched to nemolizumab. The rate of response was again about two thirds for those with lesion resolution considered clear or almost clear by the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response.
 

No Serious AEs Over Extended Follow-Up

With a mean duration of 388 days follow-up, there were no serious AEs that were clearly treatment related, but Dr. Kwatra did report that some patients developed mild eczematous lesions that typically responded to topical therapy. He also reported that asthma, particularly worsening asthma in patients already diagnosed with this disease, was seen in a small proportion of patients. Both were considered manageable, and no patients discontinued therapy because of these events, Dr. Kwatra said.

While further follow-up is planned, “we have never seen data in a prurigo nodularis [treatment trial] past 6 months,” he pointed out. For a challenging disease with a major adverse effect on quality of life, nemolizumab, if approved, will offer an important option for a difficult disease, he added.

Itch Improves in Patients with AD

Further support for the long-term safety of nemolizumab and its efficacy against itch was provided by another phase 3 extension study conducted in the treatment of AD. These long-term extension results were also presented in a late breaker session at the AAD meeting.

Evaluating maintenance data from responders, defined as a 75% reduction lesions on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) or as clear or almost clear skin on IGA at the end of the randomized ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, there were 169 patients on every 4-week nemolizumab, 169 patients on every 8-week nemolizumab, and 169 patients on every 4-week placebo.

For pruritus, a ≥ 4 point NRS reduction was achieved at week 48 in 76.2% of those on the every 4-week dose, 59.7% of those on the every 8-week dose, and 41% on those on placebo, reported Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Department of Dermatology, George Washington School of Medicine, Washington.

These not only represented sustained responses over the course of 48 weeks, but there was a gradual rise in this rate of success from baseline in the higher dose group. For a NRS score of ≤ 2, meaning no itch or almost no itch, the proportions were 64.9%, 52.9%, and 31.3%, respectively. These were accompanied by sustained responses in IGA and EASI-75 scores.

Overall, there was a “nice durability of response” over the maintenance period, with no new or dose-related safety signals, according to Dr. Silverberg. He pointed out that the every 8-week dose response was lower than every 4-week dose response, but “it looks very good” in regard to response and duration of response, “suggesting that this might be an option for a large subset of patients.”

Andrew Blauvelt, MD, an investigator with Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, Oregon, cautioned that despite the promise, dermatologists “might need help” in understanding this new agent and using it appropriately. He pointed out that it employs a new mechanism of action, and it has “a couple of new twists that we have not seen with other drugs,” including its association with worsening asthma.

Noting that asthma exacerbation has been reported in a proportion of treated patients approaching 4%, he expressed concern “that this is not rare.” He also expressed concern about reports of peripheral edema and asked Dr. Kwatra specifically how this should be handled in the routine clinical setting.

Pointing out that the 1% of new cases of asthma in the nemolizumab arm was, in fact, lower than the rate of new cases in the placebo arm, Dr. Kwatra said that there have been cases of increased asthma symptoms in patients with existing disease. However, he added that this and the reports of peripheral edema, some of which appear to be simply associated with prurigo nodularis, typically resolve with routine interventions. He said, however, that these side effects represent legitimate concerns that clinicians should consider, but he indicated that they do not appear to be a threat to the benefit-to-risk ratio of this agent.

In February 2024, the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency accepted submissions for nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis and AD, according to Galderma, the company developing nemolizumab.

Dr. Kwatra reported a financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, which sponsored the nemolizumab trials. Dr. Silverberg reported financial relationships with more than 35 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma. Dr. Blauvelt reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.