User login
15th Report on Carcinogens Adds to Its List
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori)—the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.
In 1971, then President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the US) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori)—the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.
In 1971, then President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the US) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori)—the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.
In 1971, then President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the US) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
Aspirin fails to inhibit breast cancer recurrence
Aspirin use failed to reduce recurrence rates among women with breast cancer in a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial that was halted following a planned futility analysis. The aspirin group actually had greater risk of recurrence, though the result did not reach statistical significance. Aspirin has proven effective in reducing recurrence rates in colon cancer.
Despite the disappointment of the results, Wendy Chen, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, emphasized the value of the study. “Negative studies provide important data. You don’t want people doing something that’s not going to be helping them. There have been a lot of negative studies that have still provided important clinical information,” said Dr. Chen, who presented the results of the study at the ASCO Plenary Series.
Even study participants took the news with equanimity. “What has really been gratifying is that the patients, when we did tell them about the results, all of them [said] ‘I’m really glad I participated in the study anyway. I think it was an important question.’ And this is why we do studies. You don’t do studies because every single one of them is going to show a benefit. We do studies knowing that some of them are going to show no benefit,” said Dr. Chen.
The study included 3,021 women under age 70, recruited from 338 sites between 2017 and 2020, who were randomized to 300 mg daily aspirin or placebo. The median follow-up was 24.0 months. Dropout was high, with only 56% of patients still taking aspirin or placebo at the end of the study. The percentage was nearly identical in both arms. That low treatment rate could potentially explain the lack of an apparent effect, but Dr. Chen noted that the incidence of recurrence was actually higher in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.25), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .1258). “The amount that it would need to flip in the second half [of the study] would really be of such a large magnitude to flip it. That biologically would not be plausible,” Dr. Chen said.
Previous epidemiological and even post hoc analyses of other clinical trials had suggested that aspirin might be effective at reducing recurrence in breast cancer, including data from 39,876 participants in the Women’s Health Study suggesting a reduction in risk of metastatic adenocarcinoma, but this isn’t the first time such evidence has led researchers and physicians astray. Dr. Chen pointed to hormone replacement therapy, which was prescribed for the prevention of breast cancer recurrence on the basis of similar evidence, but was shown to be harmful in a randomized, controlled trial.
“It was a very similar situation. Fortunately, the aspirin in this population was not causing harm, but it is possible that there are a lot of people who are just taking aspirin on their own, and they may be over 70, or they may have have other risk factors for adverse events that are different from our population,” Dr. Chen said.
The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Cancer Institute. Bayer provided aspirin and placebo for the study.
Aspirin use failed to reduce recurrence rates among women with breast cancer in a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial that was halted following a planned futility analysis. The aspirin group actually had greater risk of recurrence, though the result did not reach statistical significance. Aspirin has proven effective in reducing recurrence rates in colon cancer.
Despite the disappointment of the results, Wendy Chen, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, emphasized the value of the study. “Negative studies provide important data. You don’t want people doing something that’s not going to be helping them. There have been a lot of negative studies that have still provided important clinical information,” said Dr. Chen, who presented the results of the study at the ASCO Plenary Series.
Even study participants took the news with equanimity. “What has really been gratifying is that the patients, when we did tell them about the results, all of them [said] ‘I’m really glad I participated in the study anyway. I think it was an important question.’ And this is why we do studies. You don’t do studies because every single one of them is going to show a benefit. We do studies knowing that some of them are going to show no benefit,” said Dr. Chen.
The study included 3,021 women under age 70, recruited from 338 sites between 2017 and 2020, who were randomized to 300 mg daily aspirin or placebo. The median follow-up was 24.0 months. Dropout was high, with only 56% of patients still taking aspirin or placebo at the end of the study. The percentage was nearly identical in both arms. That low treatment rate could potentially explain the lack of an apparent effect, but Dr. Chen noted that the incidence of recurrence was actually higher in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.25), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .1258). “The amount that it would need to flip in the second half [of the study] would really be of such a large magnitude to flip it. That biologically would not be plausible,” Dr. Chen said.
Previous epidemiological and even post hoc analyses of other clinical trials had suggested that aspirin might be effective at reducing recurrence in breast cancer, including data from 39,876 participants in the Women’s Health Study suggesting a reduction in risk of metastatic adenocarcinoma, but this isn’t the first time such evidence has led researchers and physicians astray. Dr. Chen pointed to hormone replacement therapy, which was prescribed for the prevention of breast cancer recurrence on the basis of similar evidence, but was shown to be harmful in a randomized, controlled trial.
“It was a very similar situation. Fortunately, the aspirin in this population was not causing harm, but it is possible that there are a lot of people who are just taking aspirin on their own, and they may be over 70, or they may have have other risk factors for adverse events that are different from our population,” Dr. Chen said.
The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Cancer Institute. Bayer provided aspirin and placebo for the study.
Aspirin use failed to reduce recurrence rates among women with breast cancer in a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial that was halted following a planned futility analysis. The aspirin group actually had greater risk of recurrence, though the result did not reach statistical significance. Aspirin has proven effective in reducing recurrence rates in colon cancer.
Despite the disappointment of the results, Wendy Chen, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, emphasized the value of the study. “Negative studies provide important data. You don’t want people doing something that’s not going to be helping them. There have been a lot of negative studies that have still provided important clinical information,” said Dr. Chen, who presented the results of the study at the ASCO Plenary Series.
Even study participants took the news with equanimity. “What has really been gratifying is that the patients, when we did tell them about the results, all of them [said] ‘I’m really glad I participated in the study anyway. I think it was an important question.’ And this is why we do studies. You don’t do studies because every single one of them is going to show a benefit. We do studies knowing that some of them are going to show no benefit,” said Dr. Chen.
The study included 3,021 women under age 70, recruited from 338 sites between 2017 and 2020, who were randomized to 300 mg daily aspirin or placebo. The median follow-up was 24.0 months. Dropout was high, with only 56% of patients still taking aspirin or placebo at the end of the study. The percentage was nearly identical in both arms. That low treatment rate could potentially explain the lack of an apparent effect, but Dr. Chen noted that the incidence of recurrence was actually higher in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.25), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .1258). “The amount that it would need to flip in the second half [of the study] would really be of such a large magnitude to flip it. That biologically would not be plausible,” Dr. Chen said.
Previous epidemiological and even post hoc analyses of other clinical trials had suggested that aspirin might be effective at reducing recurrence in breast cancer, including data from 39,876 participants in the Women’s Health Study suggesting a reduction in risk of metastatic adenocarcinoma, but this isn’t the first time such evidence has led researchers and physicians astray. Dr. Chen pointed to hormone replacement therapy, which was prescribed for the prevention of breast cancer recurrence on the basis of similar evidence, but was shown to be harmful in a randomized, controlled trial.
“It was a very similar situation. Fortunately, the aspirin in this population was not causing harm, but it is possible that there are a lot of people who are just taking aspirin on their own, and they may be over 70, or they may have have other risk factors for adverse events that are different from our population,” Dr. Chen said.
The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Cancer Institute. Bayer provided aspirin and placebo for the study.
FROM ASCO PLENARY SERIES
Oncology care model reduces cost of supportive care meds
The Oncology Care Model (OCM), launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with the goal of reducing spending for Medicare beneficiaries, was “associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes,” according to new findings.
The OCM led to a statistically significant reduction in the use of denosumab – a pricier bone-modifying drug – by patients with bone metastases without changing the overall use of bone-modifying medications. The OCM also prompted more rapid adoption of a less expensive white blood cell growth factor agent – the biosimilar filgrastim – and more selective use of costly antiemetics as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea.
study author Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write.
The study was published online Feb. 25 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Since the OCM was launched in 2016, several studies have evaluated whether the alternative payment model reached its goal of reducing spending while improving or maintaining the quality of cancer care.
The results have been decidedly mixed.
As previously reported by this news organization, one study found that after 4 years, the OCM led to a $155 million net loss to Medicare. During that time, physician participation in the program also declined, with the number of practices dropping almost 30% between 2016 and 2020.
Other studies, however, have highlighted more positive results.
One large community practice reported saving Medicare $3 million over the course of 1 year. Another analysis found that among community practices that adopted the OCM, in the first year of the program, there was less physician-administered drug use by patients with prostate cancer, lower drug costs by patients with lung and prostate cancer, fewer visits by patients with breast or colon cancer, and lower office-based costs in all cancers analyzed. However, these savings were largely offset by the costs of these programs.
In the current study, DR. Brooks and colleagues compared the use of supportive care medications – bone-modifying drugs as well as prophylactic white blood cell (WBC) growth factors and antiemetics – in practices that adopted the OCM and those that didn’t.
More specifically, the authors zeroed in on the bone-modifying agent denosumab for patients with breast, lung, or prostate cancer and the WBC growth factor biosimilar filgrastim for those receiving chemotherapy for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. Prophylactic use of higher-cost neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists for patients receiving chemotherapy for any type of cancer was also evaluated.
The authors evaluated chemotherapy episodes assigned to OCM (n = 201) and comparison practices (n = 534) using Medicare claims from 2013-2019.
There was a total of 255,638 treatment episodes for bone metastases. The authors found that the OCM led to relative reductions in the use of denosumab but not in the overall use of bone-modifying medications, which included the less costly options zoledronic acid and pamidronate. The use of denosumab was similar for OCM and comparison practices during the baseline period, but during the intervention period, there were statistically significant relative reductions in the use of denosumab at OCM practices for breast (-5.0%), prostate (-4.0%), and lung cancer (-4.1%).
For WBC growth factors, 164,310 episodes were included in analyses. The OCM did not affect the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during breast cancer chemotherapy for those at high risk of febrile neutropenia but did lead to a relative decrease during intermediate-risk chemotherapy (-7.6%). The authors observed no OCM impact on the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors among intermediate-risk lung or colorectal cancer patients. But, during the intervention period, OCM practices did demonstrate an increased use of originator or biosimilar filgrastim (57.3%) compared to other practices (47.6%), and the quarterly rate of increase in the use of the biosimilar grew 2.6 percentage points faster in OCM practices.
The authors report that there were 414,792 treatment episodes involving the use of prophylactic antiemetics. Overall, among patients receiving chemotherapy with high or moderate emetic risk, the OCM led to reductions in the prophylactic use of NK1 antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists. The authors report a 6.0 percentage point reduction in the use of NK1 antagonists during high-emetic-risk chemotherapy.
“We found that OCM was associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes consistent with value-based care redesign,” the authors conclude. “These impacts on supportive care medication use align with previously reported spending reductions attributable to OCM and suggest that alternative payment models have potential to drive value-based changes in supportive care during cancer treatment.”
The study was supported by CMS. Several of the coauthors have reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Oncology Care Model (OCM), launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with the goal of reducing spending for Medicare beneficiaries, was “associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes,” according to new findings.
The OCM led to a statistically significant reduction in the use of denosumab – a pricier bone-modifying drug – by patients with bone metastases without changing the overall use of bone-modifying medications. The OCM also prompted more rapid adoption of a less expensive white blood cell growth factor agent – the biosimilar filgrastim – and more selective use of costly antiemetics as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea.
study author Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write.
The study was published online Feb. 25 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Since the OCM was launched in 2016, several studies have evaluated whether the alternative payment model reached its goal of reducing spending while improving or maintaining the quality of cancer care.
The results have been decidedly mixed.
As previously reported by this news organization, one study found that after 4 years, the OCM led to a $155 million net loss to Medicare. During that time, physician participation in the program also declined, with the number of practices dropping almost 30% between 2016 and 2020.
Other studies, however, have highlighted more positive results.
One large community practice reported saving Medicare $3 million over the course of 1 year. Another analysis found that among community practices that adopted the OCM, in the first year of the program, there was less physician-administered drug use by patients with prostate cancer, lower drug costs by patients with lung and prostate cancer, fewer visits by patients with breast or colon cancer, and lower office-based costs in all cancers analyzed. However, these savings were largely offset by the costs of these programs.
In the current study, DR. Brooks and colleagues compared the use of supportive care medications – bone-modifying drugs as well as prophylactic white blood cell (WBC) growth factors and antiemetics – in practices that adopted the OCM and those that didn’t.
More specifically, the authors zeroed in on the bone-modifying agent denosumab for patients with breast, lung, or prostate cancer and the WBC growth factor biosimilar filgrastim for those receiving chemotherapy for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. Prophylactic use of higher-cost neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists for patients receiving chemotherapy for any type of cancer was also evaluated.
The authors evaluated chemotherapy episodes assigned to OCM (n = 201) and comparison practices (n = 534) using Medicare claims from 2013-2019.
There was a total of 255,638 treatment episodes for bone metastases. The authors found that the OCM led to relative reductions in the use of denosumab but not in the overall use of bone-modifying medications, which included the less costly options zoledronic acid and pamidronate. The use of denosumab was similar for OCM and comparison practices during the baseline period, but during the intervention period, there were statistically significant relative reductions in the use of denosumab at OCM practices for breast (-5.0%), prostate (-4.0%), and lung cancer (-4.1%).
For WBC growth factors, 164,310 episodes were included in analyses. The OCM did not affect the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during breast cancer chemotherapy for those at high risk of febrile neutropenia but did lead to a relative decrease during intermediate-risk chemotherapy (-7.6%). The authors observed no OCM impact on the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors among intermediate-risk lung or colorectal cancer patients. But, during the intervention period, OCM practices did demonstrate an increased use of originator or biosimilar filgrastim (57.3%) compared to other practices (47.6%), and the quarterly rate of increase in the use of the biosimilar grew 2.6 percentage points faster in OCM practices.
The authors report that there were 414,792 treatment episodes involving the use of prophylactic antiemetics. Overall, among patients receiving chemotherapy with high or moderate emetic risk, the OCM led to reductions in the prophylactic use of NK1 antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists. The authors report a 6.0 percentage point reduction in the use of NK1 antagonists during high-emetic-risk chemotherapy.
“We found that OCM was associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes consistent with value-based care redesign,” the authors conclude. “These impacts on supportive care medication use align with previously reported spending reductions attributable to OCM and suggest that alternative payment models have potential to drive value-based changes in supportive care during cancer treatment.”
The study was supported by CMS. Several of the coauthors have reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Oncology Care Model (OCM), launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with the goal of reducing spending for Medicare beneficiaries, was “associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes,” according to new findings.
The OCM led to a statistically significant reduction in the use of denosumab – a pricier bone-modifying drug – by patients with bone metastases without changing the overall use of bone-modifying medications. The OCM also prompted more rapid adoption of a less expensive white blood cell growth factor agent – the biosimilar filgrastim – and more selective use of costly antiemetics as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea.
study author Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write.
The study was published online Feb. 25 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Since the OCM was launched in 2016, several studies have evaluated whether the alternative payment model reached its goal of reducing spending while improving or maintaining the quality of cancer care.
The results have been decidedly mixed.
As previously reported by this news organization, one study found that after 4 years, the OCM led to a $155 million net loss to Medicare. During that time, physician participation in the program also declined, with the number of practices dropping almost 30% between 2016 and 2020.
Other studies, however, have highlighted more positive results.
One large community practice reported saving Medicare $3 million over the course of 1 year. Another analysis found that among community practices that adopted the OCM, in the first year of the program, there was less physician-administered drug use by patients with prostate cancer, lower drug costs by patients with lung and prostate cancer, fewer visits by patients with breast or colon cancer, and lower office-based costs in all cancers analyzed. However, these savings were largely offset by the costs of these programs.
In the current study, DR. Brooks and colleagues compared the use of supportive care medications – bone-modifying drugs as well as prophylactic white blood cell (WBC) growth factors and antiemetics – in practices that adopted the OCM and those that didn’t.
More specifically, the authors zeroed in on the bone-modifying agent denosumab for patients with breast, lung, or prostate cancer and the WBC growth factor biosimilar filgrastim for those receiving chemotherapy for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. Prophylactic use of higher-cost neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists for patients receiving chemotherapy for any type of cancer was also evaluated.
The authors evaluated chemotherapy episodes assigned to OCM (n = 201) and comparison practices (n = 534) using Medicare claims from 2013-2019.
There was a total of 255,638 treatment episodes for bone metastases. The authors found that the OCM led to relative reductions in the use of denosumab but not in the overall use of bone-modifying medications, which included the less costly options zoledronic acid and pamidronate. The use of denosumab was similar for OCM and comparison practices during the baseline period, but during the intervention period, there were statistically significant relative reductions in the use of denosumab at OCM practices for breast (-5.0%), prostate (-4.0%), and lung cancer (-4.1%).
For WBC growth factors, 164,310 episodes were included in analyses. The OCM did not affect the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during breast cancer chemotherapy for those at high risk of febrile neutropenia but did lead to a relative decrease during intermediate-risk chemotherapy (-7.6%). The authors observed no OCM impact on the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors among intermediate-risk lung or colorectal cancer patients. But, during the intervention period, OCM practices did demonstrate an increased use of originator or biosimilar filgrastim (57.3%) compared to other practices (47.6%), and the quarterly rate of increase in the use of the biosimilar grew 2.6 percentage points faster in OCM practices.
The authors report that there were 414,792 treatment episodes involving the use of prophylactic antiemetics. Overall, among patients receiving chemotherapy with high or moderate emetic risk, the OCM led to reductions in the prophylactic use of NK1 antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists. The authors report a 6.0 percentage point reduction in the use of NK1 antagonists during high-emetic-risk chemotherapy.
“We found that OCM was associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes consistent with value-based care redesign,” the authors conclude. “These impacts on supportive care medication use align with previously reported spending reductions attributable to OCM and suggest that alternative payment models have potential to drive value-based changes in supportive care during cancer treatment.”
The study was supported by CMS. Several of the coauthors have reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Should all women be routinely screened for lung cancer?
especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.
The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.
Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.
Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.
“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”
Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.
USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.
A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.
“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.
Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.
“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.
The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.
The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.
This article was updated 3/2/22.
especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.
The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.
Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.
Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.
“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”
Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.
USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.
A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.
“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.
Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.
“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.
The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.
The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.
This article was updated 3/2/22.
especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.
The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.
Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.
Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.
“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”
Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.
USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.
A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.
“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.
Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.
“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.
The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.
The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.
This article was updated 3/2/22.
FROM BJS OPEN
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: Breast Cancer March 2022
The predilection for brain metastases in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer has historically presented a therapeutic challenge, and agents with enhanced central nervous system (CNS) penetrance are certainly desired. Pyrotinib is a small molecule irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), HER2, and HER4. Yan et al investigated the activity and safety of pyrotinib + capecitabine in the single-arm, two-cohort, phase 2 PERMEATE study among 78 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with brain metastases. The intracranial objective response rate was 74.6% in radiotherapy-naive patients and 42.1% in those progressing after prior radiotherapy. The combination showed good tolerability with the most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events of diarrhea and neutropenia. Additional studies have shown impressive CNS activity with other HER2-targeted therapies including tucatinib + capecitabine + trastuzumab combination, as well as trastuzumab deruxtecan (HER2CLIMB and DESTINY-Breast03 trials, respectively). The evolution of these agents in both the metastatic and early settings will continue to transform the treatment algorithm for HER2-positive breast cancer. A particularly interesting concept is whether earlier use of drugs with better CNS efficacy can reduce risk or prevent development of brain metastases.
Endocrine therapy in early-stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer leads to significant reductions in recurrence and breast cancer mortality. A meta-analysis was performed by Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group including four trials (ABCSG XII, SOFT, TEXT and HOBOE), 7030 premenopausal patients with early-stage ER+ breast cancer, who received an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen for 3-5 years with ovarian suppression. Rates of breast cancer recurrence were lower with an aromatase inhibitor vs tamoxifen, with the main benefit seen during years 0-4 (relative risk [RR] 0.68, P < .0001) and an absolute reduction in 5-year recurrence risk of 3.2% (6.9% vs 10.1%). Aromatase inhibitor use was associated with decreased distant recurrence risk (RR 0.83), but there was no significant difference for breast cancer or all-cause mortality. The favored endocrine therapy approach for an individual patient is often complex and based on overall risk, comorbidities and toxicity concerns, as well as patient preference. Longer follow-up of trials with endocrine therapy and ovarian suppression will provide further insight on mortality impact.
Aromatase inhibitor (AI)-associated musculoskeletal symptoms are not infrequent and can contribute to treatment discontinuation. Current management practices include use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), weight loss and exercise, trial of alternative AI or tamoxifen, use of serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) (duloxetine) and acupuncture. Martinez et al reported on outcomes of the non-selective NSAID, sulindac (150mg twice daily for 12 months), in a phase 2 study among postmenopausal women with early HR+ breast cancer who were stable on AI therapy for at least 3 months. At 12 months, patients receiving sulindac (n = 43) reported improvements (decreases) in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index (-5.85, P = .003), pain (-5.40, P = .043), stiffness (-9.53, P < .001) and physical function (-5.61, P = .006); those in the observation group (n = 40) did not experience improvements in these variables. The most significant improvement with sulindac was seen in those with a higher degree of baseline symptoms and in overweight/obese patients. These findings support further investigation into abbreviated NSAID use and strategies focused on exercise and healthy body weight maintenance for breast cancer patients.
The treatment landscape for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) continues to evolve with integration of new drugs into our armamentarium, and use of pathologic complete response (pCR) as a surrogate for outcome and for tailoring adjuvant therapy. Geyer et al reported on event-free survival outcomes with a 4.5 year follow-up of the phase 3 BrighTNess trial, which included 634 patients with stage II-III TNBC. Significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS) was seen in the carboplatin + veliparib + paclitaxel arm vs. paclitaxel alone (HR 0.63, P = .02), but no difference in EFS in carboplatin + veliparib + paclitaxel vs. carboplatin + paclitaxel (HR 1.12, P = .62). The EFS rates at 4 years were 78% (carboplatin + veliparib + paclitaxel), 79% (carboplatin + paclitaxel) and 69% (paclitaxel alone). The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 trial demonstrated improvement in EFS with the addition of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy (carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by AC) followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with stage II-III TNBC. The emergence of new therapies for early TNBC, including immunotherapy and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (the latter for patients with germline BRCA mutations), has created more treatment options for patients along with questions regarding combinations and sequencing.
Recommended Additional Reading:
Lin N et al. Updated results of tucatinib vs placebo added to trastuzumab and capecitabine for patients with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer with brain metastases (HER2CLIMB). Presented at: 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 7-10, 2021;Spotlight Poster Session, PD4-04 Abstract 858. https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/10462/presentation/482
Hurvitz S et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) versus trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer: subgroup analyses from the randomized phase 3 study DESTINY-Breast03. Presented at: 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 7-10, 2021;General Session, GS3-01. https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/10462/presentation/649
Rosati MS, Di Seri M, Baciarello G, et al. Etoricoxib and anastrozole in adjuvant early breast cancer: ETAN trial (phase III). J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:suppl.533. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.533
Schmid P et al for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(6):556-567. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
The predilection for brain metastases in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer has historically presented a therapeutic challenge, and agents with enhanced central nervous system (CNS) penetrance are certainly desired. Pyrotinib is a small molecule irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), HER2, and HER4. Yan et al investigated the activity and safety of pyrotinib + capecitabine in the single-arm, two-cohort, phase 2 PERMEATE study among 78 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with brain metastases. The intracranial objective response rate was 74.6% in radiotherapy-naive patients and 42.1% in those progressing after prior radiotherapy. The combination showed good tolerability with the most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events of diarrhea and neutropenia. Additional studies have shown impressive CNS activity with other HER2-targeted therapies including tucatinib + capecitabine + trastuzumab combination, as well as trastuzumab deruxtecan (HER2CLIMB and DESTINY-Breast03 trials, respectively). The evolution of these agents in both the metastatic and early settings will continue to transform the treatment algorithm for HER2-positive breast cancer. A particularly interesting concept is whether earlier use of drugs with better CNS efficacy can reduce risk or prevent development of brain metastases.
Endocrine therapy in early-stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer leads to significant reductions in recurrence and breast cancer mortality. A meta-analysis was performed by Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group including four trials (ABCSG XII, SOFT, TEXT and HOBOE), 7030 premenopausal patients with early-stage ER+ breast cancer, who received an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen for 3-5 years with ovarian suppression. Rates of breast cancer recurrence were lower with an aromatase inhibitor vs tamoxifen, with the main benefit seen during years 0-4 (relative risk [RR] 0.68, P < .0001) and an absolute reduction in 5-year recurrence risk of 3.2% (6.9% vs 10.1%). Aromatase inhibitor use was associated with decreased distant recurrence risk (RR 0.83), but there was no significant difference for breast cancer or all-cause mortality. The favored endocrine therapy approach for an individual patient is often complex and based on overall risk, comorbidities and toxicity concerns, as well as patient preference. Longer follow-up of trials with endocrine therapy and ovarian suppression will provide further insight on mortality impact.
Aromatase inhibitor (AI)-associated musculoskeletal symptoms are not infrequent and can contribute to treatment discontinuation. Current management practices include use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), weight loss and exercise, trial of alternative AI or tamoxifen, use of serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) (duloxetine) and acupuncture. Martinez et al reported on outcomes of the non-selective NSAID, sulindac (150mg twice daily for 12 months), in a phase 2 study among postmenopausal women with early HR+ breast cancer who were stable on AI therapy for at least 3 months. At 12 months, patients receiving sulindac (n = 43) reported improvements (decreases) in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index (-5.85, P = .003), pain (-5.40, P = .043), stiffness (-9.53, P < .001) and physical function (-5.61, P = .006); those in the observation group (n = 40) did not experience improvements in these variables. The most significant improvement with sulindac was seen in those with a higher degree of baseline symptoms and in overweight/obese patients. These findings support further investigation into abbreviated NSAID use and strategies focused on exercise and healthy body weight maintenance for breast cancer patients.
The treatment landscape for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) continues to evolve with integration of new drugs into our armamentarium, and use of pathologic complete response (pCR) as a surrogate for outcome and for tailoring adjuvant therapy. Geyer et al reported on event-free survival outcomes with a 4.5 year follow-up of the phase 3 BrighTNess trial, which included 634 patients with stage II-III TNBC. Significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS) was seen in the carboplatin + veliparib + paclitaxel arm vs. paclitaxel alone (HR 0.63, P = .02), but no difference in EFS in carboplatin + veliparib + paclitaxel vs. carboplatin + paclitaxel (HR 1.12, P = .62). The EFS rates at 4 years were 78% (carboplatin + veliparib + paclitaxel), 79% (carboplatin + paclitaxel) and 69% (paclitaxel alone). The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 trial demonstrated improvement in EFS with the addition of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy (carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by AC) followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with stage II-III TNBC. The emergence of new therapies for early TNBC, including immunotherapy and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (the latter for patients with germline BRCA mutations), has created more treatment options for patients along with questions regarding combinations and sequencing.
Recommended Additional Reading:
Lin N et al. Updated results of tucatinib vs placebo added to trastuzumab and capecitabine for patients with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer with brain metastases (HER2CLIMB). Presented at: 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 7-10, 2021;Spotlight Poster Session, PD4-04 Abstract 858. https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/10462/presentation/482
Hurvitz S et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) versus trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer: subgroup analyses from the randomized phase 3 study DESTINY-Breast03. Presented at: 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 7-10, 2021;General Session, GS3-01. https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/10462/presentation/649
Rosati MS, Di Seri M, Baciarello G, et al. Etoricoxib and anastrozole in adjuvant early breast cancer: ETAN trial (phase III). J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:suppl.533. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.533
Schmid P et al for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(6):556-567. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
The predilection for brain metastases in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer has historically presented a therapeutic challenge, and agents with enhanced central nervous system (CNS) penetrance are certainly desired. Pyrotinib is a small molecule irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), HER2, and HER4. Yan et al investigated the activity and safety of pyrotinib + capecitabine in the single-arm, two-cohort, phase 2 PERMEATE study among 78 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with brain metastases. The intracranial objective response rate was 74.6% in radiotherapy-naive patients and 42.1% in those progressing after prior radiotherapy. The combination showed good tolerability with the most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events of diarrhea and neutropenia. Additional studies have shown impressive CNS activity with other HER2-targeted therapies including tucatinib + capecitabine + trastuzumab combination, as well as trastuzumab deruxtecan (HER2CLIMB and DESTINY-Breast03 trials, respectively). The evolution of these agents in both the metastatic and early settings will continue to transform the treatment algorithm for HER2-positive breast cancer. A particularly interesting concept is whether earlier use of drugs with better CNS efficacy can reduce risk or prevent development of brain metastases.
Endocrine therapy in early-stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer leads to significant reductions in recurrence and breast cancer mortality. A meta-analysis was performed by Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group including four trials (ABCSG XII, SOFT, TEXT and HOBOE), 7030 premenopausal patients with early-stage ER+ breast cancer, who received an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen for 3-5 years with ovarian suppression. Rates of breast cancer recurrence were lower with an aromatase inhibitor vs tamoxifen, with the main benefit seen during years 0-4 (relative risk [RR] 0.68, P < .0001) and an absolute reduction in 5-year recurrence risk of 3.2% (6.9% vs 10.1%). Aromatase inhibitor use was associated with decreased distant recurrence risk (RR 0.83), but there was no significant difference for breast cancer or all-cause mortality. The favored endocrine therapy approach for an individual patient is often complex and based on overall risk, comorbidities and toxicity concerns, as well as patient preference. Longer follow-up of trials with endocrine therapy and ovarian suppression will provide further insight on mortality impact.
Aromatase inhibitor (AI)-associated musculoskeletal symptoms are not infrequent and can contribute to treatment discontinuation. Current management practices include use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), weight loss and exercise, trial of alternative AI or tamoxifen, use of serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) (duloxetine) and acupuncture. Martinez et al reported on outcomes of the non-selective NSAID, sulindac (150mg twice daily for 12 months), in a phase 2 study among postmenopausal women with early HR+ breast cancer who were stable on AI therapy for at least 3 months. At 12 months, patients receiving sulindac (n = 43) reported improvements (decreases) in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index (-5.85, P = .003), pain (-5.40, P = .043), stiffness (-9.53, P < .001) and physical function (-5.61, P = .006); those in the observation group (n = 40) did not experience improvements in these variables. The most significant improvement with sulindac was seen in those with a higher degree of baseline symptoms and in overweight/obese patients. These findings support further investigation into abbreviated NSAID use and strategies focused on exercise and healthy body weight maintenance for breast cancer patients.
The treatment landscape for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) continues to evolve with integration of new drugs into our armamentarium, and use of pathologic complete response (pCR) as a surrogate for outcome and for tailoring adjuvant therapy. Geyer et al reported on event-free survival outcomes with a 4.5 year follow-up of the phase 3 BrighTNess trial, which included 634 patients with stage II-III TNBC. Significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS) was seen in the carboplatin + veliparib + paclitaxel arm vs. paclitaxel alone (HR 0.63, P = .02), but no difference in EFS in carboplatin + veliparib + paclitaxel vs. carboplatin + paclitaxel (HR 1.12, P = .62). The EFS rates at 4 years were 78% (carboplatin + veliparib + paclitaxel), 79% (carboplatin + paclitaxel) and 69% (paclitaxel alone). The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 trial demonstrated improvement in EFS with the addition of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy (carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by AC) followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with stage II-III TNBC. The emergence of new therapies for early TNBC, including immunotherapy and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (the latter for patients with germline BRCA mutations), has created more treatment options for patients along with questions regarding combinations and sequencing.
Recommended Additional Reading:
Lin N et al. Updated results of tucatinib vs placebo added to trastuzumab and capecitabine for patients with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer with brain metastases (HER2CLIMB). Presented at: 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 7-10, 2021;Spotlight Poster Session, PD4-04 Abstract 858. https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/10462/presentation/482
Hurvitz S et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) versus trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer: subgroup analyses from the randomized phase 3 study DESTINY-Breast03. Presented at: 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 7-10, 2021;General Session, GS3-01. https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/10462/presentation/649
Rosati MS, Di Seri M, Baciarello G, et al. Etoricoxib and anastrozole in adjuvant early breast cancer: ETAN trial (phase III). J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:suppl.533. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.533
Schmid P et al for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(6):556-567. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
Variants of nine breast cancer genes associated with severe disease
Breast cancer risk genes are generally associated with triple-negative and high-grade disease, but differ substantially in their associated pathology, a large case-control analysis shows.
The findings have potential implications for genetic testing, risk prediction, variant classification, and screening, the authors noted.
To assess links between pathogenic germline variants in nine major breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes and pathological features of nonmetastasized breast tumors, investigators from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium compared 42,680 women with breast cancer and 42,387 population-matched controls from the BRIDGES large-scale sequencing study.
They looked specifically at features relevant to prognosis and distinct therapeutic options, including tumor subtype, morphology, size, stage, and lymph node involvement, and found substantial differences in tumor subtype distribution by gene.
“Pathogenic [protein-truncating variants and pathogenic missense variants] in these ... they wrote, noting that carriers of rare genetic variants in the nine genes comprised more than 27% of women diagnosed at age 40 or younger with triple-negative disease (driven mainly by BRCA1) and about 16% of those diagnosed with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative high-grade disease.
All together, the nine genes were associated with 14.4% of tumors in women aged 40 years and younger, but less than 4% in women over age 60 years, and among younger women, the prevalence of variants combined was higher in those with triple-negative and HR-positive, HER2-negative disease versus other subtypes, they said.
The findings were published online on Jan. 27, 2022, in JAMA Oncology.
Study subjects were women aged 18-79 years who were sampled, independently of family history, from 38 international population- or hospital-based studies conducted between 1991 and 2016.
The genes assessed included ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53.
Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes by gene. For example, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BARD1 variants were associated mainly with triple-negative disease (odds ratios, 6.19, 6.19, and 10.05 respectively), and CHEK2 variants were associated with all subtypes (with ORs ranging from 2.21-3.17) except for triple-negative disease, the authors found.
“For ATM variants, the association was strongest for [HR-positive, HER2-negative]high-grade subtype (OR, 4.99). BRCA1 was associated with increased risk of all subtypes, but the ORs varied widely, being highest for triple-negative disease (OR, 55.32),” they wrote.
BRCA2 and PALB2 variants were also associated with triple-negative disease, TP53 variants were most strongly associated with HR-positive, HER2-negative and HR-negative, HER2-positive subtypes, and tumors occurring in pathogenic variant carriers were of higher grade, they added, noting that for most genes and subtypes, a decline in ORs was observed with increasing age.
All genes except CHEK2 were more strongly associated with high-grade disease.
These and other findings from the study can “inform guidelines for eligibility for gene panel sequencing and breast cancer surveillance in the general population,” the authors explained, adding that tumor characteristics can also be used to determine whether variants of uncertain significance are likely to be pathogenic.
The data should therefore “improve the precision of variant classification algorithms and extend them to a larger set of genes,” they noted.
“This case-control study suggests that rare variants in BC susceptibility genes display marked heterogeneity with respect to tumor phenotype, but also similarities between genes that are consistent with known biological functions. This present study provides detailed quantification of subtype-specific breast cancer risks; these can potentially improve risk prediction models and breast cancer prevention strategies,” they concluded.
More specifically, women found to be carrying variants in these genes may be offered enhanced screening, including by MRI, risk-reducing surgery, chemoprevention, and genetic counseling, corresponding author Nasim Mavaddat, MBBS, PhD, explained in an interview.
“Understanding tumor pathology associated with the genes can inform breast cancer risk prediction models, and management and treatment of women harboring pathogenic variants,” she noted.
The findings “enhance our understanding of breast cancer biology and aid efforts to classify whether genetic variants of uncertain significance are also likely to be pathogenic,” added Dr. Mavaddat, a senior research associate at the University of Cambridge (England).
She also said the investigators are taking steps to include the results in “CanRisk,” a cancer risk prediction model used by genetic counselors and other clinicians, and are “exploring whether variants in these genes are associated with contralateral breast cancer risk and survival after a breast cancer.”
As most participants were European, analyses should be extended to women of other racial and ethnic groups, she added.
The BRIDGES panel sequencing was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program BRIDGES and the Wellcome Trust. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium is also funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which is funded by the Government of Canada, and the Confluence project, which is funded with intramural funds from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mavaddat reported grants from the University of Cambridge, European Union Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, Genome Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study.
Breast cancer risk genes are generally associated with triple-negative and high-grade disease, but differ substantially in their associated pathology, a large case-control analysis shows.
The findings have potential implications for genetic testing, risk prediction, variant classification, and screening, the authors noted.
To assess links between pathogenic germline variants in nine major breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes and pathological features of nonmetastasized breast tumors, investigators from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium compared 42,680 women with breast cancer and 42,387 population-matched controls from the BRIDGES large-scale sequencing study.
They looked specifically at features relevant to prognosis and distinct therapeutic options, including tumor subtype, morphology, size, stage, and lymph node involvement, and found substantial differences in tumor subtype distribution by gene.
“Pathogenic [protein-truncating variants and pathogenic missense variants] in these ... they wrote, noting that carriers of rare genetic variants in the nine genes comprised more than 27% of women diagnosed at age 40 or younger with triple-negative disease (driven mainly by BRCA1) and about 16% of those diagnosed with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative high-grade disease.
All together, the nine genes were associated with 14.4% of tumors in women aged 40 years and younger, but less than 4% in women over age 60 years, and among younger women, the prevalence of variants combined was higher in those with triple-negative and HR-positive, HER2-negative disease versus other subtypes, they said.
The findings were published online on Jan. 27, 2022, in JAMA Oncology.
Study subjects were women aged 18-79 years who were sampled, independently of family history, from 38 international population- or hospital-based studies conducted between 1991 and 2016.
The genes assessed included ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53.
Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes by gene. For example, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BARD1 variants were associated mainly with triple-negative disease (odds ratios, 6.19, 6.19, and 10.05 respectively), and CHEK2 variants were associated with all subtypes (with ORs ranging from 2.21-3.17) except for triple-negative disease, the authors found.
“For ATM variants, the association was strongest for [HR-positive, HER2-negative]high-grade subtype (OR, 4.99). BRCA1 was associated with increased risk of all subtypes, but the ORs varied widely, being highest for triple-negative disease (OR, 55.32),” they wrote.
BRCA2 and PALB2 variants were also associated with triple-negative disease, TP53 variants were most strongly associated with HR-positive, HER2-negative and HR-negative, HER2-positive subtypes, and tumors occurring in pathogenic variant carriers were of higher grade, they added, noting that for most genes and subtypes, a decline in ORs was observed with increasing age.
All genes except CHEK2 were more strongly associated with high-grade disease.
These and other findings from the study can “inform guidelines for eligibility for gene panel sequencing and breast cancer surveillance in the general population,” the authors explained, adding that tumor characteristics can also be used to determine whether variants of uncertain significance are likely to be pathogenic.
The data should therefore “improve the precision of variant classification algorithms and extend them to a larger set of genes,” they noted.
“This case-control study suggests that rare variants in BC susceptibility genes display marked heterogeneity with respect to tumor phenotype, but also similarities between genes that are consistent with known biological functions. This present study provides detailed quantification of subtype-specific breast cancer risks; these can potentially improve risk prediction models and breast cancer prevention strategies,” they concluded.
More specifically, women found to be carrying variants in these genes may be offered enhanced screening, including by MRI, risk-reducing surgery, chemoprevention, and genetic counseling, corresponding author Nasim Mavaddat, MBBS, PhD, explained in an interview.
“Understanding tumor pathology associated with the genes can inform breast cancer risk prediction models, and management and treatment of women harboring pathogenic variants,” she noted.
The findings “enhance our understanding of breast cancer biology and aid efforts to classify whether genetic variants of uncertain significance are also likely to be pathogenic,” added Dr. Mavaddat, a senior research associate at the University of Cambridge (England).
She also said the investigators are taking steps to include the results in “CanRisk,” a cancer risk prediction model used by genetic counselors and other clinicians, and are “exploring whether variants in these genes are associated with contralateral breast cancer risk and survival after a breast cancer.”
As most participants were European, analyses should be extended to women of other racial and ethnic groups, she added.
The BRIDGES panel sequencing was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program BRIDGES and the Wellcome Trust. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium is also funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which is funded by the Government of Canada, and the Confluence project, which is funded with intramural funds from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mavaddat reported grants from the University of Cambridge, European Union Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, Genome Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study.
Breast cancer risk genes are generally associated with triple-negative and high-grade disease, but differ substantially in their associated pathology, a large case-control analysis shows.
The findings have potential implications for genetic testing, risk prediction, variant classification, and screening, the authors noted.
To assess links between pathogenic germline variants in nine major breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes and pathological features of nonmetastasized breast tumors, investigators from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium compared 42,680 women with breast cancer and 42,387 population-matched controls from the BRIDGES large-scale sequencing study.
They looked specifically at features relevant to prognosis and distinct therapeutic options, including tumor subtype, morphology, size, stage, and lymph node involvement, and found substantial differences in tumor subtype distribution by gene.
“Pathogenic [protein-truncating variants and pathogenic missense variants] in these ... they wrote, noting that carriers of rare genetic variants in the nine genes comprised more than 27% of women diagnosed at age 40 or younger with triple-negative disease (driven mainly by BRCA1) and about 16% of those diagnosed with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative high-grade disease.
All together, the nine genes were associated with 14.4% of tumors in women aged 40 years and younger, but less than 4% in women over age 60 years, and among younger women, the prevalence of variants combined was higher in those with triple-negative and HR-positive, HER2-negative disease versus other subtypes, they said.
The findings were published online on Jan. 27, 2022, in JAMA Oncology.
Study subjects were women aged 18-79 years who were sampled, independently of family history, from 38 international population- or hospital-based studies conducted between 1991 and 2016.
The genes assessed included ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53.
Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes by gene. For example, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BARD1 variants were associated mainly with triple-negative disease (odds ratios, 6.19, 6.19, and 10.05 respectively), and CHEK2 variants were associated with all subtypes (with ORs ranging from 2.21-3.17) except for triple-negative disease, the authors found.
“For ATM variants, the association was strongest for [HR-positive, HER2-negative]high-grade subtype (OR, 4.99). BRCA1 was associated with increased risk of all subtypes, but the ORs varied widely, being highest for triple-negative disease (OR, 55.32),” they wrote.
BRCA2 and PALB2 variants were also associated with triple-negative disease, TP53 variants were most strongly associated with HR-positive, HER2-negative and HR-negative, HER2-positive subtypes, and tumors occurring in pathogenic variant carriers were of higher grade, they added, noting that for most genes and subtypes, a decline in ORs was observed with increasing age.
All genes except CHEK2 were more strongly associated with high-grade disease.
These and other findings from the study can “inform guidelines for eligibility for gene panel sequencing and breast cancer surveillance in the general population,” the authors explained, adding that tumor characteristics can also be used to determine whether variants of uncertain significance are likely to be pathogenic.
The data should therefore “improve the precision of variant classification algorithms and extend them to a larger set of genes,” they noted.
“This case-control study suggests that rare variants in BC susceptibility genes display marked heterogeneity with respect to tumor phenotype, but also similarities between genes that are consistent with known biological functions. This present study provides detailed quantification of subtype-specific breast cancer risks; these can potentially improve risk prediction models and breast cancer prevention strategies,” they concluded.
More specifically, women found to be carrying variants in these genes may be offered enhanced screening, including by MRI, risk-reducing surgery, chemoprevention, and genetic counseling, corresponding author Nasim Mavaddat, MBBS, PhD, explained in an interview.
“Understanding tumor pathology associated with the genes can inform breast cancer risk prediction models, and management and treatment of women harboring pathogenic variants,” she noted.
The findings “enhance our understanding of breast cancer biology and aid efforts to classify whether genetic variants of uncertain significance are also likely to be pathogenic,” added Dr. Mavaddat, a senior research associate at the University of Cambridge (England).
She also said the investigators are taking steps to include the results in “CanRisk,” a cancer risk prediction model used by genetic counselors and other clinicians, and are “exploring whether variants in these genes are associated with contralateral breast cancer risk and survival after a breast cancer.”
As most participants were European, analyses should be extended to women of other racial and ethnic groups, she added.
The BRIDGES panel sequencing was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program BRIDGES and the Wellcome Trust. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium is also funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which is funded by the Government of Canada, and the Confluence project, which is funded with intramural funds from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mavaddat reported grants from the University of Cambridge, European Union Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, Genome Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Poor trial representation tied to worse breast cancer survival
Women with early-stage breast cancer who are poorly represented in clinical trials have worse survival than their well-represented peers, according to a real-world analysis.
The study shows that more than half of women with early breast cancer are not well represented in clinical trials because of age, comorbidities, or race, yet they receive therapies based on the results of these trials.
“The most interesting finding is that patients with comorbidities resulting in lab abnormalities that would typically exclude them from receiving medication on a trial are still frequently receiving these medications and have an almost threefold higher mortality,” Gabrielle Rocque, MD, with the division of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.
“We need to do a deeper dive to better understand what is driving this mortality difference and test specific medications in patients with these conditions to understand the optimal treatment for this population,” Dr. Rocque added.
The study was published Feb. 1 in JCO Oncology Practice.
Many patient groups are not well represented in clinical trials, including patients of color, older patients, and those with comorbidities, and it remains unclear how treatment outcomes may differ among these patients, compared with those who are well represented in trials.
To investigate, Dr. Rocque and colleagues looked at 11,770 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ database.
White women between 45 and 69 years of age with no comorbid conditions were considered well represented and made up 48% of the cohort.
Non-White women and/or those younger than 45 years or older than 70 were considered under represented and made up 45% of the cohort. The unrepresented group (7%) included women with comorbidities – such as liver disease, renal insufficiency, thrombocytopenia, anemia, or uncontrolled diabetes – or concurrent cancer.
The majority of the women received a high-intensity chemotherapy regimen, including 58% of unrepresented, 66% of underrepresented, and 63% of well-represented patients.
Compared with well-represented women, unrepresented women had a higher risk of death at 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-3.52).
Overall, the team found no significant increase in the risk of death at 5 years in underrepresented vs. well-represented women (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.45). However, that risk varied with age. Among underrepresented women, those aged 70 and older had more than a twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 2.21), while those younger than 45 had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.63), compared with those aged 45-69 years.
For three cancer subtypes, unrepresented patients had a greater than twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality, compared with well-represented patients (aHR, 2.50 for HER2-positive disease; aHR, 2.54 for HR-positive/HER2-negative disease; and aHR, 2.75 for triple-negative disease).
Underrepresented patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had a 38% increased risk of 5-year mortality, compared with their well-represented peers (aHR, 1.38). However, there were no significant differences in 5-year mortality for underrepresented vs. well-represented patients with HER2-positive or triple-negative subtypes.
Risky business?
This analysis shows that unrepresented populations receive common treatment regimens at a similar rate as well-represented patients, the researchers note.
“By excluding patients with differing clinical conditions from trials but including them in the population to which drugs can be disseminated, one runs the risk of inadvertently causing injury,” the authors caution.
“To inform the practice of evidence-based medicine in an equitable manner, our findings support a need to both expand clinical trial inclusion criteria and report on clinical trial outcomes by clinical and demographic characteristics,” Dr. Rocque and colleagues conclude.
Charles Shapiro, MD, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is not surprised by the findings of this study.
“We know that clinical trials are too restrictive and include only a selected population largely without comorbidities, but in the real world, people have comorbidities,” Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.
The study “starkly illustrates” the poorer survival of populations not represented in clinical trials.
“It could be that we need to change clinical trials, maybe ask fewer questions or maybe ask more important questions and loosen the eligibility up, because in the real world, there are people with comorbidities and people who are over 70,” Dr. Shapiro stated.
Are strides being made to change that? “Not really,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.
The study was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Rocque has served as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer; has received research funding from Carevive Systems, Genentech, and Pfizer; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Carevive. Dr. Shapiro has financial relationships with UptoDate, 2nd MD, and Anthenum.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women with early-stage breast cancer who are poorly represented in clinical trials have worse survival than their well-represented peers, according to a real-world analysis.
The study shows that more than half of women with early breast cancer are not well represented in clinical trials because of age, comorbidities, or race, yet they receive therapies based on the results of these trials.
“The most interesting finding is that patients with comorbidities resulting in lab abnormalities that would typically exclude them from receiving medication on a trial are still frequently receiving these medications and have an almost threefold higher mortality,” Gabrielle Rocque, MD, with the division of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.
“We need to do a deeper dive to better understand what is driving this mortality difference and test specific medications in patients with these conditions to understand the optimal treatment for this population,” Dr. Rocque added.
The study was published Feb. 1 in JCO Oncology Practice.
Many patient groups are not well represented in clinical trials, including patients of color, older patients, and those with comorbidities, and it remains unclear how treatment outcomes may differ among these patients, compared with those who are well represented in trials.
To investigate, Dr. Rocque and colleagues looked at 11,770 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ database.
White women between 45 and 69 years of age with no comorbid conditions were considered well represented and made up 48% of the cohort.
Non-White women and/or those younger than 45 years or older than 70 were considered under represented and made up 45% of the cohort. The unrepresented group (7%) included women with comorbidities – such as liver disease, renal insufficiency, thrombocytopenia, anemia, or uncontrolled diabetes – or concurrent cancer.
The majority of the women received a high-intensity chemotherapy regimen, including 58% of unrepresented, 66% of underrepresented, and 63% of well-represented patients.
Compared with well-represented women, unrepresented women had a higher risk of death at 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-3.52).
Overall, the team found no significant increase in the risk of death at 5 years in underrepresented vs. well-represented women (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.45). However, that risk varied with age. Among underrepresented women, those aged 70 and older had more than a twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 2.21), while those younger than 45 had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.63), compared with those aged 45-69 years.
For three cancer subtypes, unrepresented patients had a greater than twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality, compared with well-represented patients (aHR, 2.50 for HER2-positive disease; aHR, 2.54 for HR-positive/HER2-negative disease; and aHR, 2.75 for triple-negative disease).
Underrepresented patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had a 38% increased risk of 5-year mortality, compared with their well-represented peers (aHR, 1.38). However, there were no significant differences in 5-year mortality for underrepresented vs. well-represented patients with HER2-positive or triple-negative subtypes.
Risky business?
This analysis shows that unrepresented populations receive common treatment regimens at a similar rate as well-represented patients, the researchers note.
“By excluding patients with differing clinical conditions from trials but including them in the population to which drugs can be disseminated, one runs the risk of inadvertently causing injury,” the authors caution.
“To inform the practice of evidence-based medicine in an equitable manner, our findings support a need to both expand clinical trial inclusion criteria and report on clinical trial outcomes by clinical and demographic characteristics,” Dr. Rocque and colleagues conclude.
Charles Shapiro, MD, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is not surprised by the findings of this study.
“We know that clinical trials are too restrictive and include only a selected population largely without comorbidities, but in the real world, people have comorbidities,” Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.
The study “starkly illustrates” the poorer survival of populations not represented in clinical trials.
“It could be that we need to change clinical trials, maybe ask fewer questions or maybe ask more important questions and loosen the eligibility up, because in the real world, there are people with comorbidities and people who are over 70,” Dr. Shapiro stated.
Are strides being made to change that? “Not really,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.
The study was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Rocque has served as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer; has received research funding from Carevive Systems, Genentech, and Pfizer; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Carevive. Dr. Shapiro has financial relationships with UptoDate, 2nd MD, and Anthenum.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women with early-stage breast cancer who are poorly represented in clinical trials have worse survival than their well-represented peers, according to a real-world analysis.
The study shows that more than half of women with early breast cancer are not well represented in clinical trials because of age, comorbidities, or race, yet they receive therapies based on the results of these trials.
“The most interesting finding is that patients with comorbidities resulting in lab abnormalities that would typically exclude them from receiving medication on a trial are still frequently receiving these medications and have an almost threefold higher mortality,” Gabrielle Rocque, MD, with the division of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.
“We need to do a deeper dive to better understand what is driving this mortality difference and test specific medications in patients with these conditions to understand the optimal treatment for this population,” Dr. Rocque added.
The study was published Feb. 1 in JCO Oncology Practice.
Many patient groups are not well represented in clinical trials, including patients of color, older patients, and those with comorbidities, and it remains unclear how treatment outcomes may differ among these patients, compared with those who are well represented in trials.
To investigate, Dr. Rocque and colleagues looked at 11,770 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ database.
White women between 45 and 69 years of age with no comorbid conditions were considered well represented and made up 48% of the cohort.
Non-White women and/or those younger than 45 years or older than 70 were considered under represented and made up 45% of the cohort. The unrepresented group (7%) included women with comorbidities – such as liver disease, renal insufficiency, thrombocytopenia, anemia, or uncontrolled diabetes – or concurrent cancer.
The majority of the women received a high-intensity chemotherapy regimen, including 58% of unrepresented, 66% of underrepresented, and 63% of well-represented patients.
Compared with well-represented women, unrepresented women had a higher risk of death at 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-3.52).
Overall, the team found no significant increase in the risk of death at 5 years in underrepresented vs. well-represented women (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.45). However, that risk varied with age. Among underrepresented women, those aged 70 and older had more than a twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 2.21), while those younger than 45 had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.63), compared with those aged 45-69 years.
For three cancer subtypes, unrepresented patients had a greater than twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality, compared with well-represented patients (aHR, 2.50 for HER2-positive disease; aHR, 2.54 for HR-positive/HER2-negative disease; and aHR, 2.75 for triple-negative disease).
Underrepresented patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had a 38% increased risk of 5-year mortality, compared with their well-represented peers (aHR, 1.38). However, there were no significant differences in 5-year mortality for underrepresented vs. well-represented patients with HER2-positive or triple-negative subtypes.
Risky business?
This analysis shows that unrepresented populations receive common treatment regimens at a similar rate as well-represented patients, the researchers note.
“By excluding patients with differing clinical conditions from trials but including them in the population to which drugs can be disseminated, one runs the risk of inadvertently causing injury,” the authors caution.
“To inform the practice of evidence-based medicine in an equitable manner, our findings support a need to both expand clinical trial inclusion criteria and report on clinical trial outcomes by clinical and demographic characteristics,” Dr. Rocque and colleagues conclude.
Charles Shapiro, MD, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is not surprised by the findings of this study.
“We know that clinical trials are too restrictive and include only a selected population largely without comorbidities, but in the real world, people have comorbidities,” Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.
The study “starkly illustrates” the poorer survival of populations not represented in clinical trials.
“It could be that we need to change clinical trials, maybe ask fewer questions or maybe ask more important questions and loosen the eligibility up, because in the real world, there are people with comorbidities and people who are over 70,” Dr. Shapiro stated.
Are strides being made to change that? “Not really,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.
The study was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Rocque has served as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer; has received research funding from Carevive Systems, Genentech, and Pfizer; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Carevive. Dr. Shapiro has financial relationships with UptoDate, 2nd MD, and Anthenum.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JCO ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
HR-positive BC: Sulindac relieves musculoskeletal symptoms in patients receiving aromatase inhibitors
Key clinical point: Sulindac relieved musculoskeletal symptoms in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC) who received aromatase inhibitor (AI) for ≥3 months.
Major finding: At 12 months, patients receiving sulindac reported a significant improvement in the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; − 5.85; P = .003), pain (−5.40; P = .043), stiffness (−9.53, P < .001), and physical function (− 5.61; P = .006) with 37% of patients with higher baseline symptoms reporting ≥50% improvement in total WOMAC along with an overall tolerable safety profile.
Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 study of postmenopausal women with HR+ BC stable on AI therapy for ≥3 months, of which 43 women received 150 mg sulindac twice daily for 12 months whereas 40 women formed the non-randomized control arm.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Martinez JA et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;192:113-122 (Jan 18). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06485-0.
Key clinical point: Sulindac relieved musculoskeletal symptoms in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC) who received aromatase inhibitor (AI) for ≥3 months.
Major finding: At 12 months, patients receiving sulindac reported a significant improvement in the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; − 5.85; P = .003), pain (−5.40; P = .043), stiffness (−9.53, P < .001), and physical function (− 5.61; P = .006) with 37% of patients with higher baseline symptoms reporting ≥50% improvement in total WOMAC along with an overall tolerable safety profile.
Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 study of postmenopausal women with HR+ BC stable on AI therapy for ≥3 months, of which 43 women received 150 mg sulindac twice daily for 12 months whereas 40 women formed the non-randomized control arm.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Martinez JA et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;192:113-122 (Jan 18). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06485-0.
Key clinical point: Sulindac relieved musculoskeletal symptoms in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC) who received aromatase inhibitor (AI) for ≥3 months.
Major finding: At 12 months, patients receiving sulindac reported a significant improvement in the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; − 5.85; P = .003), pain (−5.40; P = .043), stiffness (−9.53, P < .001), and physical function (− 5.61; P = .006) with 37% of patients with higher baseline symptoms reporting ≥50% improvement in total WOMAC along with an overall tolerable safety profile.
Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 study of postmenopausal women with HR+ BC stable on AI therapy for ≥3 months, of which 43 women received 150 mg sulindac twice daily for 12 months whereas 40 women formed the non-randomized control arm.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Martinez JA et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;192:113-122 (Jan 18). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06485-0.
HER2-negative BC: Better pathological response with nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel in real world
Key clinical point: Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel showed a superior pathological complete response (pCR) rate but similar disease-free survival (DFS) compared with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC).
Major finding: Rate of pCR was significantly higher in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group (36.71% vs. 20.00%; P = .031); however, DFS was not significantly different (P = .331). At least 1 drug-related adverse event was reported in 94.94% vs. 95.00% patients in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 159 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC who underwent surgery after receiving nab-paclitaxel (n = 79) or docetaxel (n = 80), both with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide.
Disclosures: This study was funded by the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Lv Z-D et al. Front Oncol. 2022 (Jan 11). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.760655.
Key clinical point: Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel showed a superior pathological complete response (pCR) rate but similar disease-free survival (DFS) compared with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC).
Major finding: Rate of pCR was significantly higher in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group (36.71% vs. 20.00%; P = .031); however, DFS was not significantly different (P = .331). At least 1 drug-related adverse event was reported in 94.94% vs. 95.00% patients in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 159 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC who underwent surgery after receiving nab-paclitaxel (n = 79) or docetaxel (n = 80), both with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide.
Disclosures: This study was funded by the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Lv Z-D et al. Front Oncol. 2022 (Jan 11). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.760655.
Key clinical point: Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel showed a superior pathological complete response (pCR) rate but similar disease-free survival (DFS) compared with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC).
Major finding: Rate of pCR was significantly higher in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group (36.71% vs. 20.00%; P = .031); however, DFS was not significantly different (P = .331). At least 1 drug-related adverse event was reported in 94.94% vs. 95.00% patients in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 159 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC who underwent surgery after receiving nab-paclitaxel (n = 79) or docetaxel (n = 80), both with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide.
Disclosures: This study was funded by the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Lv Z-D et al. Front Oncol. 2022 (Jan 11). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.760655.
HER2-low expression is dynamic in breast cancer
Key clinical point: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low expression was significantly discordant between early and advanced stages of invasive breast cancer (BC), with the expression being enriched in the advanced stages.
Major finding: Significant discordance in HER2 expression between the primary tumor and matched biopsy samples was observed in the overall population (Cohen’s kappa coefficient (K) 0.33; 95% CI 0.21-0.44) and in subgroups of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC (K 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.45) and triple-negative (TN) BC (K 0.18; 95% CI −0.09 to 0.46) with HER2-low expression being enriched in advanced-stage biopsies vs. primary tumors in the overall population (64% vs. 53%), ER+ BC (71% vs. 57%), and TNBC (38% vs. 36%).
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 232 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC.
Disclosures: This study was partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health with Ricerca Corrente. Some of the authors declared serving as an advisor and consultant or receiving honoraria from several sources.
Source: Tarantino P et al. Eur J Cancer. 2022;163:P35-43 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.12.022.
Key clinical point: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low expression was significantly discordant between early and advanced stages of invasive breast cancer (BC), with the expression being enriched in the advanced stages.
Major finding: Significant discordance in HER2 expression between the primary tumor and matched biopsy samples was observed in the overall population (Cohen’s kappa coefficient (K) 0.33; 95% CI 0.21-0.44) and in subgroups of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC (K 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.45) and triple-negative (TN) BC (K 0.18; 95% CI −0.09 to 0.46) with HER2-low expression being enriched in advanced-stage biopsies vs. primary tumors in the overall population (64% vs. 53%), ER+ BC (71% vs. 57%), and TNBC (38% vs. 36%).
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 232 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC.
Disclosures: This study was partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health with Ricerca Corrente. Some of the authors declared serving as an advisor and consultant or receiving honoraria from several sources.
Source: Tarantino P et al. Eur J Cancer. 2022;163:P35-43 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.12.022.
Key clinical point: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low expression was significantly discordant between early and advanced stages of invasive breast cancer (BC), with the expression being enriched in the advanced stages.
Major finding: Significant discordance in HER2 expression between the primary tumor and matched biopsy samples was observed in the overall population (Cohen’s kappa coefficient (K) 0.33; 95% CI 0.21-0.44) and in subgroups of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC (K 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.45) and triple-negative (TN) BC (K 0.18; 95% CI −0.09 to 0.46) with HER2-low expression being enriched in advanced-stage biopsies vs. primary tumors in the overall population (64% vs. 53%), ER+ BC (71% vs. 57%), and TNBC (38% vs. 36%).
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 232 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC.
Disclosures: This study was partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health with Ricerca Corrente. Some of the authors declared serving as an advisor and consultant or receiving honoraria from several sources.
Source: Tarantino P et al. Eur J Cancer. 2022;163:P35-43 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.12.022.