Breast Cancer

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with chemotherapy to treat locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that expresses PD-L1, as determined by a combined positive score of 10 or greater on an FDA-approved assay.

The FDA also approved a PD-L1 assay for selecting TNBC patients for pembrolizumab, the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx.

Pembrolizumab is approved for numerous indications in the United States, but the new approval is its first breast cancer indication.

The accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in TNBC was based on progression-free survival (PFS) in the KEYNOTE-355 trial. The FDA noted that continued approval of pembrolizumab in TNBC “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials.”

KEYNOTE-355 enrolled patients with locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC who had not received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) plus placebo (n = 281) or chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab at 200 mg on day 1 every 3 weeks (n = 562).

Among PD-L1-positive patients (n = 323), the median PFS was 5.6 months in the placebo arm and 9.7 months in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0012).

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in TNBC is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks administered prior to chemotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months.

Pembrolizumab can cause immune-mediated adverse reactions that may be severe or fatal, according to Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. These adverse reactions include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, severe skin reactions, solid organ transplant rejection, and complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“Based on the severity of the adverse reaction, [pembrolizumab] should be withheld or discontinued and corticosteroids administered if appropriate,” the company noted.

For more details on pembrolizumab, see the full prescribing information.

aotto@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with chemotherapy to treat locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that expresses PD-L1, as determined by a combined positive score of 10 or greater on an FDA-approved assay.

The FDA also approved a PD-L1 assay for selecting TNBC patients for pembrolizumab, the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx.

Pembrolizumab is approved for numerous indications in the United States, but the new approval is its first breast cancer indication.

The accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in TNBC was based on progression-free survival (PFS) in the KEYNOTE-355 trial. The FDA noted that continued approval of pembrolizumab in TNBC “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials.”

KEYNOTE-355 enrolled patients with locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC who had not received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) plus placebo (n = 281) or chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab at 200 mg on day 1 every 3 weeks (n = 562).

Among PD-L1-positive patients (n = 323), the median PFS was 5.6 months in the placebo arm and 9.7 months in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0012).

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in TNBC is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks administered prior to chemotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months.

Pembrolizumab can cause immune-mediated adverse reactions that may be severe or fatal, according to Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. These adverse reactions include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, severe skin reactions, solid organ transplant rejection, and complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“Based on the severity of the adverse reaction, [pembrolizumab] should be withheld or discontinued and corticosteroids administered if appropriate,” the company noted.

For more details on pembrolizumab, see the full prescribing information.

aotto@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with chemotherapy to treat locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that expresses PD-L1, as determined by a combined positive score of 10 or greater on an FDA-approved assay.

The FDA also approved a PD-L1 assay for selecting TNBC patients for pembrolizumab, the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx.

Pembrolizumab is approved for numerous indications in the United States, but the new approval is its first breast cancer indication.

The accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in TNBC was based on progression-free survival (PFS) in the KEYNOTE-355 trial. The FDA noted that continued approval of pembrolizumab in TNBC “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials.”

KEYNOTE-355 enrolled patients with locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC who had not received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) plus placebo (n = 281) or chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab at 200 mg on day 1 every 3 weeks (n = 562).

Among PD-L1-positive patients (n = 323), the median PFS was 5.6 months in the placebo arm and 9.7 months in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0012).

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in TNBC is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks administered prior to chemotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months.

Pembrolizumab can cause immune-mediated adverse reactions that may be severe or fatal, according to Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. These adverse reactions include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, severe skin reactions, solid organ transplant rejection, and complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“Based on the severity of the adverse reaction, [pembrolizumab] should be withheld or discontinued and corticosteroids administered if appropriate,” the company noted.

For more details on pembrolizumab, see the full prescribing information.

aotto@mdedge.com

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data support genetic testing in breast cancer patients older than 65 years, according to researchers.

The prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes predisposing women to breast cancer was 3.18% among women with breast cancer and 1.48% among women without breast cancer in a case-control study of 26,707 women older than 65 years.

Variants in BRCA1/2, CHEK2, and PALB2 were significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk. The residual risk of breast cancer for women aged 66-85 years was 18.3% for BRCA1, 18.6% for BRCA2, 14.9% for CHEK2, and 15.8% for PALB2. In comparison, the residual risk of breast cancer for the general population was 6.8%, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.

The investigators noted that women who develop breast cancer beyond 65 years of age – a large percentage of the breast cancer population – do not often qualify for genetic testing, but the frequency of pathogenic variants “is not negligible in this population” and significantly elevates remaining lifetime risk.

The data from this study “can be used to reevaluate cancer screening and additional risk management strategies for women over the age of 65,” investigator Nicholas Boddicker, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in a poster presentation.

The researchers presented their findings at the American Society of Human Genetics Virtual Meeting 2020.
 

Results may inform guidelines

National guidelines generally recommend screening for genetic variants when women develop breast cancer early in life or if they have a family history of breast cancer, but there has been controversy about whether those screening recommendations should be expanded, Dr. Boddicker and colleagues noted. The team thinks data from their study should help inform the discussion.

“We had an idea that the prevalence of these mutations in this population was not going to be zero, but I am not sure we were thinking that it was going to be over 3%. We believe these data will assist with reassessing genetic testing guidelines,” Dr. Boddicker said in an interview.

He said expanding genetic screening to include older women would have clinical implications. Women found to have pathogenic variants could perhaps undergo MRI surveillance in addition to mammography. If they are especially high risk, prophylactic mastectomy could be considered. Also, newer treatments hinge on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as PARP inhibitors for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with BRCA mutations.
 

Current testing limits ‘ridiculous’

“This is an excellent study and shows that even women over 65 have significant risk of breast cancer if they have a pathogenic variant. The variant could absolutely affect their treatment,” said Peter Beitsch, MD, a breast cancer surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group.

Dr. Beitsch was the lead author of a study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, that showed that nearly half of breast cancer patients with a clinically actionable pathogenic variant were missed by current testing guidelines.

“All patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer [should] undergo expanded panel testing,” Dr. Beitsch and colleagues concluded in the paper.

Dr. Beitsch said current limitations on genetic screening make “no common sense. It’s OK to genetically test a woman who is 64 years and 11 months, but not 1 month later? Obviously ridiculous,” he said when asked for comment on the new report.

“The bigger impact is on their relatives,” Dr. Beitsch added. “Identifying people (men and women) with the same pathogenic variant can potentially save lives from more intensive screening or even prevent a cancer by doing prophylactic mastectomies. Male relatives have increased incidence of cancers with pathogenic variants in many of these genes.”

Screening for those variants could “lead to earlier detection or prevention,” Dr. Beitsch said.

As Dr. Boddicker noted, however, there is the question of who would pay for expanded screening and how to counsel patients who, despite increased risk, may never develop cancer.
 

Study details and next steps

The study included 13,762 women with breast cancer who were older than 65 years and 12,945 age-matched controls without breast cancer. A multigene amplicon-based panel was used to identify 12 known pathogenic variants in breast cancer–predisposing genes.

The women were part of the CARRIERS consortium, which pools breast cancer patients from case-control studies. Overall, 82.6% of subjects were non-Hispanic White, 25.6% of breast cancer patients and 17.9% of control subjects had a positive family history, and the mean age was 72.8 years (range, 66-94.3 years).

Across the entire study population, 0.48% of subjects had variants in ATM, 0.18% in BRCA1, 0.49% in BRCA2, 0.67% in CHEK2, and 0.23% in PALB2.

After adjustment for age, race, and family history, pathogenic variants in BRCA1 increased the risk of cancer more than threefold (odds ratio, 3.37), with similar findings for BRCA2 (OR, 2.64), PALB2 (OR, 3.09), and CHEK2 (OR, 2.13). ATM variants were not associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer (OR, 1.38).

Dr. Boddicker said the researchers’ next steps are to incorporate polygenic risk scores into the analyses and further investigate the impact of race.

The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Boddicker and Dr. Beitsch didn’t have any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Boddicker NJ et al. ASHG 2020, Abstract 2412.

New data support genetic testing in breast cancer patients older than 65 years, according to researchers.

The prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes predisposing women to breast cancer was 3.18% among women with breast cancer and 1.48% among women without breast cancer in a case-control study of 26,707 women older than 65 years.

Variants in BRCA1/2, CHEK2, and PALB2 were significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk. The residual risk of breast cancer for women aged 66-85 years was 18.3% for BRCA1, 18.6% for BRCA2, 14.9% for CHEK2, and 15.8% for PALB2. In comparison, the residual risk of breast cancer for the general population was 6.8%, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.

The investigators noted that women who develop breast cancer beyond 65 years of age – a large percentage of the breast cancer population – do not often qualify for genetic testing, but the frequency of pathogenic variants “is not negligible in this population” and significantly elevates remaining lifetime risk.

The data from this study “can be used to reevaluate cancer screening and additional risk management strategies for women over the age of 65,” investigator Nicholas Boddicker, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in a poster presentation.

The researchers presented their findings at the American Society of Human Genetics Virtual Meeting 2020.
 

Results may inform guidelines

National guidelines generally recommend screening for genetic variants when women develop breast cancer early in life or if they have a family history of breast cancer, but there has been controversy about whether those screening recommendations should be expanded, Dr. Boddicker and colleagues noted. The team thinks data from their study should help inform the discussion.

“We had an idea that the prevalence of these mutations in this population was not going to be zero, but I am not sure we were thinking that it was going to be over 3%. We believe these data will assist with reassessing genetic testing guidelines,” Dr. Boddicker said in an interview.

He said expanding genetic screening to include older women would have clinical implications. Women found to have pathogenic variants could perhaps undergo MRI surveillance in addition to mammography. If they are especially high risk, prophylactic mastectomy could be considered. Also, newer treatments hinge on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as PARP inhibitors for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with BRCA mutations.
 

Current testing limits ‘ridiculous’

“This is an excellent study and shows that even women over 65 have significant risk of breast cancer if they have a pathogenic variant. The variant could absolutely affect their treatment,” said Peter Beitsch, MD, a breast cancer surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group.

Dr. Beitsch was the lead author of a study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, that showed that nearly half of breast cancer patients with a clinically actionable pathogenic variant were missed by current testing guidelines.

“All patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer [should] undergo expanded panel testing,” Dr. Beitsch and colleagues concluded in the paper.

Dr. Beitsch said current limitations on genetic screening make “no common sense. It’s OK to genetically test a woman who is 64 years and 11 months, but not 1 month later? Obviously ridiculous,” he said when asked for comment on the new report.

“The bigger impact is on their relatives,” Dr. Beitsch added. “Identifying people (men and women) with the same pathogenic variant can potentially save lives from more intensive screening or even prevent a cancer by doing prophylactic mastectomies. Male relatives have increased incidence of cancers with pathogenic variants in many of these genes.”

Screening for those variants could “lead to earlier detection or prevention,” Dr. Beitsch said.

As Dr. Boddicker noted, however, there is the question of who would pay for expanded screening and how to counsel patients who, despite increased risk, may never develop cancer.
 

Study details and next steps

The study included 13,762 women with breast cancer who were older than 65 years and 12,945 age-matched controls without breast cancer. A multigene amplicon-based panel was used to identify 12 known pathogenic variants in breast cancer–predisposing genes.

The women were part of the CARRIERS consortium, which pools breast cancer patients from case-control studies. Overall, 82.6% of subjects were non-Hispanic White, 25.6% of breast cancer patients and 17.9% of control subjects had a positive family history, and the mean age was 72.8 years (range, 66-94.3 years).

Across the entire study population, 0.48% of subjects had variants in ATM, 0.18% in BRCA1, 0.49% in BRCA2, 0.67% in CHEK2, and 0.23% in PALB2.

After adjustment for age, race, and family history, pathogenic variants in BRCA1 increased the risk of cancer more than threefold (odds ratio, 3.37), with similar findings for BRCA2 (OR, 2.64), PALB2 (OR, 3.09), and CHEK2 (OR, 2.13). ATM variants were not associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer (OR, 1.38).

Dr. Boddicker said the researchers’ next steps are to incorporate polygenic risk scores into the analyses and further investigate the impact of race.

The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Boddicker and Dr. Beitsch didn’t have any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Boddicker NJ et al. ASHG 2020, Abstract 2412.

New data support genetic testing in breast cancer patients older than 65 years, according to researchers.

The prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes predisposing women to breast cancer was 3.18% among women with breast cancer and 1.48% among women without breast cancer in a case-control study of 26,707 women older than 65 years.

Variants in BRCA1/2, CHEK2, and PALB2 were significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk. The residual risk of breast cancer for women aged 66-85 years was 18.3% for BRCA1, 18.6% for BRCA2, 14.9% for CHEK2, and 15.8% for PALB2. In comparison, the residual risk of breast cancer for the general population was 6.8%, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.

The investigators noted that women who develop breast cancer beyond 65 years of age – a large percentage of the breast cancer population – do not often qualify for genetic testing, but the frequency of pathogenic variants “is not negligible in this population” and significantly elevates remaining lifetime risk.

The data from this study “can be used to reevaluate cancer screening and additional risk management strategies for women over the age of 65,” investigator Nicholas Boddicker, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in a poster presentation.

The researchers presented their findings at the American Society of Human Genetics Virtual Meeting 2020.
 

Results may inform guidelines

National guidelines generally recommend screening for genetic variants when women develop breast cancer early in life or if they have a family history of breast cancer, but there has been controversy about whether those screening recommendations should be expanded, Dr. Boddicker and colleagues noted. The team thinks data from their study should help inform the discussion.

“We had an idea that the prevalence of these mutations in this population was not going to be zero, but I am not sure we were thinking that it was going to be over 3%. We believe these data will assist with reassessing genetic testing guidelines,” Dr. Boddicker said in an interview.

He said expanding genetic screening to include older women would have clinical implications. Women found to have pathogenic variants could perhaps undergo MRI surveillance in addition to mammography. If they are especially high risk, prophylactic mastectomy could be considered. Also, newer treatments hinge on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as PARP inhibitors for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with BRCA mutations.
 

Current testing limits ‘ridiculous’

“This is an excellent study and shows that even women over 65 have significant risk of breast cancer if they have a pathogenic variant. The variant could absolutely affect their treatment,” said Peter Beitsch, MD, a breast cancer surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group.

Dr. Beitsch was the lead author of a study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, that showed that nearly half of breast cancer patients with a clinically actionable pathogenic variant were missed by current testing guidelines.

“All patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer [should] undergo expanded panel testing,” Dr. Beitsch and colleagues concluded in the paper.

Dr. Beitsch said current limitations on genetic screening make “no common sense. It’s OK to genetically test a woman who is 64 years and 11 months, but not 1 month later? Obviously ridiculous,” he said when asked for comment on the new report.

“The bigger impact is on their relatives,” Dr. Beitsch added. “Identifying people (men and women) with the same pathogenic variant can potentially save lives from more intensive screening or even prevent a cancer by doing prophylactic mastectomies. Male relatives have increased incidence of cancers with pathogenic variants in many of these genes.”

Screening for those variants could “lead to earlier detection or prevention,” Dr. Beitsch said.

As Dr. Boddicker noted, however, there is the question of who would pay for expanded screening and how to counsel patients who, despite increased risk, may never develop cancer.
 

Study details and next steps

The study included 13,762 women with breast cancer who were older than 65 years and 12,945 age-matched controls without breast cancer. A multigene amplicon-based panel was used to identify 12 known pathogenic variants in breast cancer–predisposing genes.

The women were part of the CARRIERS consortium, which pools breast cancer patients from case-control studies. Overall, 82.6% of subjects were non-Hispanic White, 25.6% of breast cancer patients and 17.9% of control subjects had a positive family history, and the mean age was 72.8 years (range, 66-94.3 years).

Across the entire study population, 0.48% of subjects had variants in ATM, 0.18% in BRCA1, 0.49% in BRCA2, 0.67% in CHEK2, and 0.23% in PALB2.

After adjustment for age, race, and family history, pathogenic variants in BRCA1 increased the risk of cancer more than threefold (odds ratio, 3.37), with similar findings for BRCA2 (OR, 2.64), PALB2 (OR, 3.09), and CHEK2 (OR, 2.13). ATM variants were not associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer (OR, 1.38).

Dr. Boddicker said the researchers’ next steps are to incorporate polygenic risk scores into the analyses and further investigate the impact of race.

The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Boddicker and Dr. Beitsch didn’t have any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Boddicker NJ et al. ASHG 2020, Abstract 2412.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.