Cancer

In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates and targeted agents are being added to the potential treatment options for this incurable condition, which has a limited life expectancy. This is according to a review of the recent therapeutic advances and ongoing clinical trials in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Survival in the metastatic setting is 12-15 months with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy, but only 3-6 months if left untreated,” wrote Srikala S. Sridhar, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues. Their report is in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. “More recently, with the advent of immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted agents, the treatment landscape has changed significantly, with overall survival now approaching two years.”

Both the incidence and mortality from bladder cancer have risen over the past few decades. Around 5% of patients are metastatic at presentation, but nearly half of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer will eventually relapse and develop metastatic disease.

For first-line treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains the preferred option with response rates up to 72%, but durability is an issue with most patients experiencing disease progression. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease, who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1, or patients who are not eligible for any platinum-based regimen regardless of PD-L1 status, the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and pembrolizumab have received accelerated Food and Drug administration approval. More recently, pembrolizumab gained full FDA approval for use in patients not eligible to receive platinum-based chemotherapy.

While phase 3 studies are evaluating chemotherapy combined with atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, the results have not been promising. Moreover, the decreased survival observed in the immunotherapy-alone arms of these trials led the FDA to issue a warning that single agent immunotherapy should be used only in patients who are not eligible for cisplatin-based therapy and have PD-L1 expression, or in those not eligible for any platinum-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“More intensive treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma is not always better,” the authors wrote. “Some of the reasons for this could be that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are targeting a similar population of cells, or that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are antagonistic on some level.”

Maintenance strategies are considered standard of care for other advanced solid tumors. In patients with bladder cancer without disease progression after a first line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance avelumab, an anti PD-L1, has shown an overall survival of 21.4 months versus 14.3 months with best supportive care, a finding that the authors described as “practice changing.” Meanwhile, a separate trial showed increased progression-free survival with maintenance pembrolizumab, but no increased overall survival.

For second-line treatment, immunotherapy is currently the standard of care in patients with disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. While the efficiency of five anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies has been reported in the second-line setting, pembrolizumab is the only immune checkpoint inhibitor to receive full FDA approval. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, and durvalumab have received accelerated approval.

“In urothelial carcinomas, PD-1 appears to have an advantage over anti PD-L1 in the second-line setting, but in the maintenance setting, it seems to be the opposite,” the authors wrote.

Erdafitinib is the only fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy. The oral potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR 1-4 is approved for use only in patients with susceptible FGFR3 gene mutations or FGFR2/3 gene fusions. Despite being approved for second-line treatment, erdafitinib is used mainly in third-line treatment after progression on immunotherapy. 

The antibody drug conjugates sacituzumab govitecan and enfortumab vedotin, which have gained accelerated FDA approval, provide other options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma resistant to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors. As these antibody drug conjugates have different mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles, they could be used in the same patient throughout the disease course, but further research is needed. Meanwhile, many chemotherapy options, including docetaxel, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, and pemetrexed, have been tested in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with some response after platinum-based treatment.

“A number of studies evaluating promising therapeutic strategies are still ongoing and will hopefully provide information for some important unanswered questions and further guide treatment sequencing in advanced urothelial carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

They declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates and targeted agents are being added to the potential treatment options for this incurable condition, which has a limited life expectancy. This is according to a review of the recent therapeutic advances and ongoing clinical trials in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Survival in the metastatic setting is 12-15 months with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy, but only 3-6 months if left untreated,” wrote Srikala S. Sridhar, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues. Their report is in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. “More recently, with the advent of immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted agents, the treatment landscape has changed significantly, with overall survival now approaching two years.”

Both the incidence and mortality from bladder cancer have risen over the past few decades. Around 5% of patients are metastatic at presentation, but nearly half of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer will eventually relapse and develop metastatic disease.

For first-line treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains the preferred option with response rates up to 72%, but durability is an issue with most patients experiencing disease progression. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease, who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1, or patients who are not eligible for any platinum-based regimen regardless of PD-L1 status, the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and pembrolizumab have received accelerated Food and Drug administration approval. More recently, pembrolizumab gained full FDA approval for use in patients not eligible to receive platinum-based chemotherapy.

While phase 3 studies are evaluating chemotherapy combined with atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, the results have not been promising. Moreover, the decreased survival observed in the immunotherapy-alone arms of these trials led the FDA to issue a warning that single agent immunotherapy should be used only in patients who are not eligible for cisplatin-based therapy and have PD-L1 expression, or in those not eligible for any platinum-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“More intensive treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma is not always better,” the authors wrote. “Some of the reasons for this could be that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are targeting a similar population of cells, or that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are antagonistic on some level.”

Maintenance strategies are considered standard of care for other advanced solid tumors. In patients with bladder cancer without disease progression after a first line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance avelumab, an anti PD-L1, has shown an overall survival of 21.4 months versus 14.3 months with best supportive care, a finding that the authors described as “practice changing.” Meanwhile, a separate trial showed increased progression-free survival with maintenance pembrolizumab, but no increased overall survival.

For second-line treatment, immunotherapy is currently the standard of care in patients with disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. While the efficiency of five anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies has been reported in the second-line setting, pembrolizumab is the only immune checkpoint inhibitor to receive full FDA approval. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, and durvalumab have received accelerated approval.

“In urothelial carcinomas, PD-1 appears to have an advantage over anti PD-L1 in the second-line setting, but in the maintenance setting, it seems to be the opposite,” the authors wrote.

Erdafitinib is the only fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy. The oral potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR 1-4 is approved for use only in patients with susceptible FGFR3 gene mutations or FGFR2/3 gene fusions. Despite being approved for second-line treatment, erdafitinib is used mainly in third-line treatment after progression on immunotherapy. 

The antibody drug conjugates sacituzumab govitecan and enfortumab vedotin, which have gained accelerated FDA approval, provide other options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma resistant to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors. As these antibody drug conjugates have different mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles, they could be used in the same patient throughout the disease course, but further research is needed. Meanwhile, many chemotherapy options, including docetaxel, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, and pemetrexed, have been tested in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with some response after platinum-based treatment.

“A number of studies evaluating promising therapeutic strategies are still ongoing and will hopefully provide information for some important unanswered questions and further guide treatment sequencing in advanced urothelial carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

They declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates and targeted agents are being added to the potential treatment options for this incurable condition, which has a limited life expectancy. This is according to a review of the recent therapeutic advances and ongoing clinical trials in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Survival in the metastatic setting is 12-15 months with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy, but only 3-6 months if left untreated,” wrote Srikala S. Sridhar, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues. Their report is in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. “More recently, with the advent of immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted agents, the treatment landscape has changed significantly, with overall survival now approaching two years.”

Both the incidence and mortality from bladder cancer have risen over the past few decades. Around 5% of patients are metastatic at presentation, but nearly half of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer will eventually relapse and develop metastatic disease.

For first-line treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains the preferred option with response rates up to 72%, but durability is an issue with most patients experiencing disease progression. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease, who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1, or patients who are not eligible for any platinum-based regimen regardless of PD-L1 status, the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and pembrolizumab have received accelerated Food and Drug administration approval. More recently, pembrolizumab gained full FDA approval for use in patients not eligible to receive platinum-based chemotherapy.

While phase 3 studies are evaluating chemotherapy combined with atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, the results have not been promising. Moreover, the decreased survival observed in the immunotherapy-alone arms of these trials led the FDA to issue a warning that single agent immunotherapy should be used only in patients who are not eligible for cisplatin-based therapy and have PD-L1 expression, or in those not eligible for any platinum-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“More intensive treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma is not always better,” the authors wrote. “Some of the reasons for this could be that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are targeting a similar population of cells, or that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are antagonistic on some level.”

Maintenance strategies are considered standard of care for other advanced solid tumors. In patients with bladder cancer without disease progression after a first line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance avelumab, an anti PD-L1, has shown an overall survival of 21.4 months versus 14.3 months with best supportive care, a finding that the authors described as “practice changing.” Meanwhile, a separate trial showed increased progression-free survival with maintenance pembrolizumab, but no increased overall survival.

For second-line treatment, immunotherapy is currently the standard of care in patients with disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. While the efficiency of five anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies has been reported in the second-line setting, pembrolizumab is the only immune checkpoint inhibitor to receive full FDA approval. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, and durvalumab have received accelerated approval.

“In urothelial carcinomas, PD-1 appears to have an advantage over anti PD-L1 in the second-line setting, but in the maintenance setting, it seems to be the opposite,” the authors wrote.

Erdafitinib is the only fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy. The oral potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR 1-4 is approved for use only in patients with susceptible FGFR3 gene mutations or FGFR2/3 gene fusions. Despite being approved for second-line treatment, erdafitinib is used mainly in third-line treatment after progression on immunotherapy. 

The antibody drug conjugates sacituzumab govitecan and enfortumab vedotin, which have gained accelerated FDA approval, provide other options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma resistant to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors. As these antibody drug conjugates have different mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles, they could be used in the same patient throughout the disease course, but further research is needed. Meanwhile, many chemotherapy options, including docetaxel, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, and pemetrexed, have been tested in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with some response after platinum-based treatment.

“A number of studies evaluating promising therapeutic strategies are still ongoing and will hopefully provide information for some important unanswered questions and further guide treatment sequencing in advanced urothelial carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

They declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Approximately 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in women in the United States each year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said B.J. Rimel, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Despite increased cervical cancer prevention and screening efforts, the incidence of, and mortality from, cervical cancer has remained stable for the past 2 decades, said Dr. Rimel.

Cervical cancer is the only cancer that can be prevented by vaccination, Dr. Rimel noted. It is essential to identify the women who are dying from cervical cancer, as well as who gets screened, who gets vaccinated, and who ends up in clinical trials, she said.

Novel agents for treating cervical cancer suggest that improvement in stagnant mortality rates is possible, said Dr. Rimel. She noted recent studies of cemiplimab, tisotumab vedotin, and a combination therapy involving pembrolizumab and platinum/paclitaxel, with and without bevacizumab.

Dr. Rimel suggested several opportunities to improve the identification and treatment of cervical cancer: Treat it like a rare disease; address structural racism through clinical trials; create opportunities for low–socioeconomic status patients to be involved in research; and develop solutions according to location (urban vs. rural), she said.

Compared with other cancers, cervical cancer is relatively rare in the United States, Dr. Rimel said. However, “It is important that those with cervical cancer can get treated and get healed from the disease,” she said. To better identify the women with cervical cancer who need treatment and to get them into clinical trials, she suggested using strategies employed by rare disease groups, such as seeking out patient support groups and registries.

Significant racial and ethnic disparities persist in cervical cancer, Dr. Rimel emphasized. Data from the CDC show that Black and Hispanic women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer more frequently than women of other races and ethnicities and are less likely to survive.

“Reimagine cervical cancer as a disease of patients who are historically underrepresented due to race, language, poverty, and location,” she said.

Improving equity in cervical cancer care involves structural and trial-specific issues, said Dr. Rimel. Structural issues start with addressing how women enter into the health care system, she said. Consider where women receive care, and whether women have the opportunity to be vaccinated, and later screened, she said. Consider barriers to cervical cancer trials in centers with larger underserved populations, not only cost or insurance, but also issues of language and trust between patients and health care providers, she noted.

To improve the equity of cervical cancer clinical trials, consider potential barriers to enrollment, she added.

“Low English fluency is a barrier to trial enrollment,” said Dr. Rimel. In-person translation is essential for consent to participate in a trial, and “clinical trial budgets must reflect this requirement,” she added. Patient-reported outcomes need to be in the patient’s preferred language, “this includes online content,” Dr. Rimel said.

Dr. Rimel presented other strategies for clinical trial designs to improve equity.

“Compensate patients for their travel, or provide them with tech to allow for off-site monitoring,” she proposed. Patients of lower socioeconomic status in rural and urban areas have different barriers to enrollment, but virtual visits might be an option for those able to access the Internet when given a device. For others, smaller trial sites closer to home, combined with compensation for travel or missed work, might create more opportunities to participate, Dr. Rimel said. Finally, researchers should consider potential roles for smaller or broader studies that involve less travel and testing that would be feasible for more patients who might not otherwise participate in a clinical trial, she concluded.

Dr. Rimel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in women in the United States each year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said B.J. Rimel, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Despite increased cervical cancer prevention and screening efforts, the incidence of, and mortality from, cervical cancer has remained stable for the past 2 decades, said Dr. Rimel.

Cervical cancer is the only cancer that can be prevented by vaccination, Dr. Rimel noted. It is essential to identify the women who are dying from cervical cancer, as well as who gets screened, who gets vaccinated, and who ends up in clinical trials, she said.

Novel agents for treating cervical cancer suggest that improvement in stagnant mortality rates is possible, said Dr. Rimel. She noted recent studies of cemiplimab, tisotumab vedotin, and a combination therapy involving pembrolizumab and platinum/paclitaxel, with and without bevacizumab.

Dr. Rimel suggested several opportunities to improve the identification and treatment of cervical cancer: Treat it like a rare disease; address structural racism through clinical trials; create opportunities for low–socioeconomic status patients to be involved in research; and develop solutions according to location (urban vs. rural), she said.

Compared with other cancers, cervical cancer is relatively rare in the United States, Dr. Rimel said. However, “It is important that those with cervical cancer can get treated and get healed from the disease,” she said. To better identify the women with cervical cancer who need treatment and to get them into clinical trials, she suggested using strategies employed by rare disease groups, such as seeking out patient support groups and registries.

Significant racial and ethnic disparities persist in cervical cancer, Dr. Rimel emphasized. Data from the CDC show that Black and Hispanic women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer more frequently than women of other races and ethnicities and are less likely to survive.

“Reimagine cervical cancer as a disease of patients who are historically underrepresented due to race, language, poverty, and location,” she said.

Improving equity in cervical cancer care involves structural and trial-specific issues, said Dr. Rimel. Structural issues start with addressing how women enter into the health care system, she said. Consider where women receive care, and whether women have the opportunity to be vaccinated, and later screened, she said. Consider barriers to cervical cancer trials in centers with larger underserved populations, not only cost or insurance, but also issues of language and trust between patients and health care providers, she noted.

To improve the equity of cervical cancer clinical trials, consider potential barriers to enrollment, she added.

“Low English fluency is a barrier to trial enrollment,” said Dr. Rimel. In-person translation is essential for consent to participate in a trial, and “clinical trial budgets must reflect this requirement,” she added. Patient-reported outcomes need to be in the patient’s preferred language, “this includes online content,” Dr. Rimel said.

Dr. Rimel presented other strategies for clinical trial designs to improve equity.

“Compensate patients for their travel, or provide them with tech to allow for off-site monitoring,” she proposed. Patients of lower socioeconomic status in rural and urban areas have different barriers to enrollment, but virtual visits might be an option for those able to access the Internet when given a device. For others, smaller trial sites closer to home, combined with compensation for travel or missed work, might create more opportunities to participate, Dr. Rimel said. Finally, researchers should consider potential roles for smaller or broader studies that involve less travel and testing that would be feasible for more patients who might not otherwise participate in a clinical trial, she concluded.

Dr. Rimel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in women in the United States each year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said B.J. Rimel, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Despite increased cervical cancer prevention and screening efforts, the incidence of, and mortality from, cervical cancer has remained stable for the past 2 decades, said Dr. Rimel.

Cervical cancer is the only cancer that can be prevented by vaccination, Dr. Rimel noted. It is essential to identify the women who are dying from cervical cancer, as well as who gets screened, who gets vaccinated, and who ends up in clinical trials, she said.

Novel agents for treating cervical cancer suggest that improvement in stagnant mortality rates is possible, said Dr. Rimel. She noted recent studies of cemiplimab, tisotumab vedotin, and a combination therapy involving pembrolizumab and platinum/paclitaxel, with and without bevacizumab.

Dr. Rimel suggested several opportunities to improve the identification and treatment of cervical cancer: Treat it like a rare disease; address structural racism through clinical trials; create opportunities for low–socioeconomic status patients to be involved in research; and develop solutions according to location (urban vs. rural), she said.

Compared with other cancers, cervical cancer is relatively rare in the United States, Dr. Rimel said. However, “It is important that those with cervical cancer can get treated and get healed from the disease,” she said. To better identify the women with cervical cancer who need treatment and to get them into clinical trials, she suggested using strategies employed by rare disease groups, such as seeking out patient support groups and registries.

Significant racial and ethnic disparities persist in cervical cancer, Dr. Rimel emphasized. Data from the CDC show that Black and Hispanic women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer more frequently than women of other races and ethnicities and are less likely to survive.

“Reimagine cervical cancer as a disease of patients who are historically underrepresented due to race, language, poverty, and location,” she said.

Improving equity in cervical cancer care involves structural and trial-specific issues, said Dr. Rimel. Structural issues start with addressing how women enter into the health care system, she said. Consider where women receive care, and whether women have the opportunity to be vaccinated, and later screened, she said. Consider barriers to cervical cancer trials in centers with larger underserved populations, not only cost or insurance, but also issues of language and trust between patients and health care providers, she noted.

To improve the equity of cervical cancer clinical trials, consider potential barriers to enrollment, she added.

“Low English fluency is a barrier to trial enrollment,” said Dr. Rimel. In-person translation is essential for consent to participate in a trial, and “clinical trial budgets must reflect this requirement,” she added. Patient-reported outcomes need to be in the patient’s preferred language, “this includes online content,” Dr. Rimel said.

Dr. Rimel presented other strategies for clinical trial designs to improve equity.

“Compensate patients for their travel, or provide them with tech to allow for off-site monitoring,” she proposed. Patients of lower socioeconomic status in rural and urban areas have different barriers to enrollment, but virtual visits might be an option for those able to access the Internet when given a device. For others, smaller trial sites closer to home, combined with compensation for travel or missed work, might create more opportunities to participate, Dr. Rimel said. Finally, researchers should consider potential roles for smaller or broader studies that involve less travel and testing that would be feasible for more patients who might not otherwise participate in a clinical trial, she concluded.

Dr. Rimel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Targeted agents for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) should be used in the context of oncogenic addictions within the lymphoma cells, and a thorough molecular analysis should be conducted prior to using specific agents, a review of the relevant literature suggests.

“In addition ... single-agent regimens are most likely not efficient enough to substantially improve the outcome of patients with DLBCL,” Wendan Xu and colleagues at University Hospital Munster, Germany, concluded, based on their review.

Indeed, novel combinations that include B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors are needed for DLBCL treatment, and treatment should also include conventional chemoimmunotherapeutic regimens as well as other targeted agents and novel immunologic approaches, they wrote. Such novel combinations could overcome mechanisms of resistance and increase cure rates in individuals with DLBCL, they contended.

The authors’ observations are based on a search of the available data, from which they summarized the “current understanding of BCR signaling with a special focus on the PI3K pathway and its role in the pathogenesis of DLBCL.”

The addition of the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) significantly improved outcomes for patients with DLBCL, but about a third of patients are not cured by the rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen and subsequent therapies, they said, explaining their rationale for the review.

“A better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis is warranted to use novel targeted agents in an optimal manner,” they said.

The authors also addressed clinical implications of the findings, and mechanisms of resistance to PI3k inhibitors. For example, they noted that:

–Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors may be beneficial when added to R-CHOP.

In the randomized phase 3 PHOENIX trial, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with non–germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) DLBCL showed a survival benefit in patients over 60 years of age, which suggests a possible role for “an intensified R-CHOP regimen that includes a BTK inhibitor” in these patients, they said. They added that confirmatory trials are under way, including the ESCALADE trial looking at the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib combined with R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with untreated DLBCL.

–Results have been mixed with PI3K inhibitors.

Various PI3K inhibitors have been evaluated for the treatment of patients with DLBCL.

Idelalisib, a first-in-class PI3K-specific inhibitor approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), showed only modest activity in preclinical DLBCL models, and no responses were detectable in a small trial of patients with r/r DLBCL, the authors said. “Severe toxic side effects and treatment-related deaths occurred in several clinical trials that tested idelalisib in combination with antibodies alone or with antibodies and chemotherapy, leading to the premature discontinuation of some of these studies,” they noted.

Other studies investigating idelalisib plus lenalidomide and rituximab or the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor entospletinib in patients with r/r CLL or lymphoma were also halted because of “overwhelming, immune-mediated pulmonary and/or hepatic toxicities.”

Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor with preferential inhibition of PI3Ka and PI3Kd, showed some promise as monotherapy in a phase 2 trial of patients with r/r DLBCL. The overall response rate was about 20%, and response was “numerically higher” in activated B-cell like (ABC) DLBCL, compared with GCB DLBCL (32% vs. 13%), confirming preclinical data that showed PI3Ka/d inhibition effectiveness mainly in ABC DLBCL.

“Compared with idelalisib, copanlisib appears to have a more favorable toxicity profile, with a lower incidence of severe complications,” they said, adding that a phase 2 trial of copanlisib plus R-CHOP as first-line therapy for patients with DLBCL is under way.

Further, monotherapy with buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, was associated with a low response rate of 11.5% in a DLBCL subcohort in a phase 2 study, whereas parsaclisib, a next-generation inhibitor with specificity to the PI3Kd isoform, showed efficacy as a monotherapy in patients with r/r DLBCL in a phase 2 study (overall response rate, 25.5%), they said, adding that other PI3K inhibitors with additional inhibitory effects are under clinical development.

–Various molecular mechanisms of resistance to PI3K inhibitors have been described preclinically and clinically.

In an unbiased exploratory analysis of samples from patients treated with copanlisib, a 16-gene mutation signature that separated responders from nonresponders was identified, the authors said.

The finding suggests that genetic aberrations dictate response to PI3K inhibitors, they noted.

“This 16-gene signature included TNFAIP3, CREBBP, and PRDM1, which are known to be important in the molecular pathogenesis of DLBCL,” they wrote. A composite score was developed to reflect the numerical presence or absence of mutations in the gene set, they explained, adding that patients with a high composite score had a significantly higher overall response rate and longer progression-free survival than did patients with a lower score.

In addition, idelalisib treatment resulted in a feedback activation of PI3Ka in ABC DLBCL cells.

“This rebound of PI3K activity was overcome by subsequent PI3Ka inhibition in preclinical DLBCL models, further underscoring the necessity of inhibiting both PI3Ka and PI3Kd to achieve responses in ABC DLBCL,” they wrote, adding that “[i]n ABC DLBCL models treated with the PI3Ka/PI3Kd inhibitor AZD8835, activated CARD11 mutations were identified as a mechanism of resistance.”

Investigations looking at various treatment combinations to overcome resistance to PI3K inhibition and improve the efficacy of targeted approaches are under way, they said.

For example, copanlisib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax showed “synergistic activity in BCR-dependent DLBCLs, with genetic bases for BCL-2 dysregulation in vitro and in vivo,” and combination treatment with umbralisib and the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib showed synergistic cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma, they said, noting that the latter combination is currently being evaluated in patients with DLBCL.

This work was supported by a research grant from the Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Xu reported having no financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Targeted agents for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) should be used in the context of oncogenic addictions within the lymphoma cells, and a thorough molecular analysis should be conducted prior to using specific agents, a review of the relevant literature suggests.

“In addition ... single-agent regimens are most likely not efficient enough to substantially improve the outcome of patients with DLBCL,” Wendan Xu and colleagues at University Hospital Munster, Germany, concluded, based on their review.

Indeed, novel combinations that include B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors are needed for DLBCL treatment, and treatment should also include conventional chemoimmunotherapeutic regimens as well as other targeted agents and novel immunologic approaches, they wrote. Such novel combinations could overcome mechanisms of resistance and increase cure rates in individuals with DLBCL, they contended.

The authors’ observations are based on a search of the available data, from which they summarized the “current understanding of BCR signaling with a special focus on the PI3K pathway and its role in the pathogenesis of DLBCL.”

The addition of the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) significantly improved outcomes for patients with DLBCL, but about a third of patients are not cured by the rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen and subsequent therapies, they said, explaining their rationale for the review.

“A better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis is warranted to use novel targeted agents in an optimal manner,” they said.

The authors also addressed clinical implications of the findings, and mechanisms of resistance to PI3k inhibitors. For example, they noted that:

–Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors may be beneficial when added to R-CHOP.

In the randomized phase 3 PHOENIX trial, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with non–germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) DLBCL showed a survival benefit in patients over 60 years of age, which suggests a possible role for “an intensified R-CHOP regimen that includes a BTK inhibitor” in these patients, they said. They added that confirmatory trials are under way, including the ESCALADE trial looking at the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib combined with R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with untreated DLBCL.

–Results have been mixed with PI3K inhibitors.

Various PI3K inhibitors have been evaluated for the treatment of patients with DLBCL.

Idelalisib, a first-in-class PI3K-specific inhibitor approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), showed only modest activity in preclinical DLBCL models, and no responses were detectable in a small trial of patients with r/r DLBCL, the authors said. “Severe toxic side effects and treatment-related deaths occurred in several clinical trials that tested idelalisib in combination with antibodies alone or with antibodies and chemotherapy, leading to the premature discontinuation of some of these studies,” they noted.

Other studies investigating idelalisib plus lenalidomide and rituximab or the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor entospletinib in patients with r/r CLL or lymphoma were also halted because of “overwhelming, immune-mediated pulmonary and/or hepatic toxicities.”

Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor with preferential inhibition of PI3Ka and PI3Kd, showed some promise as monotherapy in a phase 2 trial of patients with r/r DLBCL. The overall response rate was about 20%, and response was “numerically higher” in activated B-cell like (ABC) DLBCL, compared with GCB DLBCL (32% vs. 13%), confirming preclinical data that showed PI3Ka/d inhibition effectiveness mainly in ABC DLBCL.

“Compared with idelalisib, copanlisib appears to have a more favorable toxicity profile, with a lower incidence of severe complications,” they said, adding that a phase 2 trial of copanlisib plus R-CHOP as first-line therapy for patients with DLBCL is under way.

Further, monotherapy with buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, was associated with a low response rate of 11.5% in a DLBCL subcohort in a phase 2 study, whereas parsaclisib, a next-generation inhibitor with specificity to the PI3Kd isoform, showed efficacy as a monotherapy in patients with r/r DLBCL in a phase 2 study (overall response rate, 25.5%), they said, adding that other PI3K inhibitors with additional inhibitory effects are under clinical development.

–Various molecular mechanisms of resistance to PI3K inhibitors have been described preclinically and clinically.

In an unbiased exploratory analysis of samples from patients treated with copanlisib, a 16-gene mutation signature that separated responders from nonresponders was identified, the authors said.

The finding suggests that genetic aberrations dictate response to PI3K inhibitors, they noted.

“This 16-gene signature included TNFAIP3, CREBBP, and PRDM1, which are known to be important in the molecular pathogenesis of DLBCL,” they wrote. A composite score was developed to reflect the numerical presence or absence of mutations in the gene set, they explained, adding that patients with a high composite score had a significantly higher overall response rate and longer progression-free survival than did patients with a lower score.

In addition, idelalisib treatment resulted in a feedback activation of PI3Ka in ABC DLBCL cells.

“This rebound of PI3K activity was overcome by subsequent PI3Ka inhibition in preclinical DLBCL models, further underscoring the necessity of inhibiting both PI3Ka and PI3Kd to achieve responses in ABC DLBCL,” they wrote, adding that “[i]n ABC DLBCL models treated with the PI3Ka/PI3Kd inhibitor AZD8835, activated CARD11 mutations were identified as a mechanism of resistance.”

Investigations looking at various treatment combinations to overcome resistance to PI3K inhibition and improve the efficacy of targeted approaches are under way, they said.

For example, copanlisib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax showed “synergistic activity in BCR-dependent DLBCLs, with genetic bases for BCL-2 dysregulation in vitro and in vivo,” and combination treatment with umbralisib and the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib showed synergistic cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma, they said, noting that the latter combination is currently being evaluated in patients with DLBCL.

This work was supported by a research grant from the Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Xu reported having no financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Targeted agents for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) should be used in the context of oncogenic addictions within the lymphoma cells, and a thorough molecular analysis should be conducted prior to using specific agents, a review of the relevant literature suggests.

“In addition ... single-agent regimens are most likely not efficient enough to substantially improve the outcome of patients with DLBCL,” Wendan Xu and colleagues at University Hospital Munster, Germany, concluded, based on their review.

Indeed, novel combinations that include B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors are needed for DLBCL treatment, and treatment should also include conventional chemoimmunotherapeutic regimens as well as other targeted agents and novel immunologic approaches, they wrote. Such novel combinations could overcome mechanisms of resistance and increase cure rates in individuals with DLBCL, they contended.

The authors’ observations are based on a search of the available data, from which they summarized the “current understanding of BCR signaling with a special focus on the PI3K pathway and its role in the pathogenesis of DLBCL.”

The addition of the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) significantly improved outcomes for patients with DLBCL, but about a third of patients are not cured by the rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen and subsequent therapies, they said, explaining their rationale for the review.

“A better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis is warranted to use novel targeted agents in an optimal manner,” they said.

The authors also addressed clinical implications of the findings, and mechanisms of resistance to PI3k inhibitors. For example, they noted that:

–Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors may be beneficial when added to R-CHOP.

In the randomized phase 3 PHOENIX trial, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with non–germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) DLBCL showed a survival benefit in patients over 60 years of age, which suggests a possible role for “an intensified R-CHOP regimen that includes a BTK inhibitor” in these patients, they said. They added that confirmatory trials are under way, including the ESCALADE trial looking at the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib combined with R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with untreated DLBCL.

–Results have been mixed with PI3K inhibitors.

Various PI3K inhibitors have been evaluated for the treatment of patients with DLBCL.

Idelalisib, a first-in-class PI3K-specific inhibitor approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), showed only modest activity in preclinical DLBCL models, and no responses were detectable in a small trial of patients with r/r DLBCL, the authors said. “Severe toxic side effects and treatment-related deaths occurred in several clinical trials that tested idelalisib in combination with antibodies alone or with antibodies and chemotherapy, leading to the premature discontinuation of some of these studies,” they noted.

Other studies investigating idelalisib plus lenalidomide and rituximab or the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor entospletinib in patients with r/r CLL or lymphoma were also halted because of “overwhelming, immune-mediated pulmonary and/or hepatic toxicities.”

Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor with preferential inhibition of PI3Ka and PI3Kd, showed some promise as monotherapy in a phase 2 trial of patients with r/r DLBCL. The overall response rate was about 20%, and response was “numerically higher” in activated B-cell like (ABC) DLBCL, compared with GCB DLBCL (32% vs. 13%), confirming preclinical data that showed PI3Ka/d inhibition effectiveness mainly in ABC DLBCL.

“Compared with idelalisib, copanlisib appears to have a more favorable toxicity profile, with a lower incidence of severe complications,” they said, adding that a phase 2 trial of copanlisib plus R-CHOP as first-line therapy for patients with DLBCL is under way.

Further, monotherapy with buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, was associated with a low response rate of 11.5% in a DLBCL subcohort in a phase 2 study, whereas parsaclisib, a next-generation inhibitor with specificity to the PI3Kd isoform, showed efficacy as a monotherapy in patients with r/r DLBCL in a phase 2 study (overall response rate, 25.5%), they said, adding that other PI3K inhibitors with additional inhibitory effects are under clinical development.

–Various molecular mechanisms of resistance to PI3K inhibitors have been described preclinically and clinically.

In an unbiased exploratory analysis of samples from patients treated with copanlisib, a 16-gene mutation signature that separated responders from nonresponders was identified, the authors said.

The finding suggests that genetic aberrations dictate response to PI3K inhibitors, they noted.

“This 16-gene signature included TNFAIP3, CREBBP, and PRDM1, which are known to be important in the molecular pathogenesis of DLBCL,” they wrote. A composite score was developed to reflect the numerical presence or absence of mutations in the gene set, they explained, adding that patients with a high composite score had a significantly higher overall response rate and longer progression-free survival than did patients with a lower score.

In addition, idelalisib treatment resulted in a feedback activation of PI3Ka in ABC DLBCL cells.

“This rebound of PI3K activity was overcome by subsequent PI3Ka inhibition in preclinical DLBCL models, further underscoring the necessity of inhibiting both PI3Ka and PI3Kd to achieve responses in ABC DLBCL,” they wrote, adding that “[i]n ABC DLBCL models treated with the PI3Ka/PI3Kd inhibitor AZD8835, activated CARD11 mutations were identified as a mechanism of resistance.”

Investigations looking at various treatment combinations to overcome resistance to PI3K inhibition and improve the efficacy of targeted approaches are under way, they said.

For example, copanlisib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax showed “synergistic activity in BCR-dependent DLBCLs, with genetic bases for BCL-2 dysregulation in vitro and in vivo,” and combination treatment with umbralisib and the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib showed synergistic cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma, they said, noting that the latter combination is currently being evaluated in patients with DLBCL.

This work was supported by a research grant from the Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Xu reported having no financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

In patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC), watchful waiting may be more suitable than active treatment for patients with asymptomatic nodular or superficial BCC and a limited life expectancy, according to a study published in JAMA Dermatology.

“Patient preferences, treatment goals, and the option for proceeding with a watchful waiting approach should be discussed as part of personalized shared decision-making,” wrote Marieke van Winden, MD, MSc, of Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. “In patients with a limited life expectancy and asymptomatic low-risk tumors, the time to benefit from treatment might exceed life expectancy, and watchful waiting should be discussed as a potentially appropriate approach.”

As little research has been undertaken on watchful waiting in patients with BCC, the expected tumor growth, progression and the chance of developing symptoms while taking this approach are poorly understood. Patients with limited life expectancy might not live long enough to develop BCC symptoms and may benefit more from watchful waiting than active treatment, authors of the study wrote.

This observational cohort study evaluated the reasons for watchful waiting, along with the natural course of 280 BCCs in 89 patients (53% men, median age 83 years) who chose this approach. Patients had one or more untreated BCCs for at least 3 months and the median follow-up was 9 months. The researchers also looked at the reasons for initiating later treatment.

Patient-related factors, including limited life expectancy, comorbidity prioritizations, and frailty, were the most important reasons to choose watchful waiting in 83% of patients, followed by tumor-related factors in 55% of patients. Of the tumors, 47% increased in size. The estimated tumor diameter increase in 1 year was 4.46 mm for infiltrative/micronodular BCCs and 1.06 mm for nodular, superficial, or clinical BCCs. Tumor growth was not associated with initial tumor size and location.

The most common reasons to initiate active treatment were tumor burden, resolved reasons for watchful waiting, and reevaluation of patient-related factors.

“All patients should be followed up regularly to determine whether a watchful waiting approach is still suited and if patients still prefer watchful waiting to reconsider the consequences of refraining from treatment,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that, while the observational and retrospective design was a limitation of the study, this allowed the authors to observe patients avoiding or delaying treatment for BCC in real clinical practice.

The study “shows that few patients developed new symptoms, and few patients who decided to treat after a delay had more invasive interventions than originally anticipated, an encouraging result as we continue to study the option and hone the details of active surveillance in BCC,” Dr. Wehner wrote. “It is important to note that the authors did not perform actual active surveillance. This study did not prospectively enroll patients and see them in follow-up at set times, nor did it have prespecified end points for recommending treatment.”

“Before evidence-based active surveillance in BCC can become a viable option, prospective studies of active surveillance, with specified follow-up times and clear outcome measures, are needed,” Dr. Wehner wrote.

Dr. van Winden did not report any conflicts of interest.

In patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC), watchful waiting may be more suitable than active treatment for patients with asymptomatic nodular or superficial BCC and a limited life expectancy, according to a study published in JAMA Dermatology.

“Patient preferences, treatment goals, and the option for proceeding with a watchful waiting approach should be discussed as part of personalized shared decision-making,” wrote Marieke van Winden, MD, MSc, of Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. “In patients with a limited life expectancy and asymptomatic low-risk tumors, the time to benefit from treatment might exceed life expectancy, and watchful waiting should be discussed as a potentially appropriate approach.”

As little research has been undertaken on watchful waiting in patients with BCC, the expected tumor growth, progression and the chance of developing symptoms while taking this approach are poorly understood. Patients with limited life expectancy might not live long enough to develop BCC symptoms and may benefit more from watchful waiting than active treatment, authors of the study wrote.

This observational cohort study evaluated the reasons for watchful waiting, along with the natural course of 280 BCCs in 89 patients (53% men, median age 83 years) who chose this approach. Patients had one or more untreated BCCs for at least 3 months and the median follow-up was 9 months. The researchers also looked at the reasons for initiating later treatment.

Patient-related factors, including limited life expectancy, comorbidity prioritizations, and frailty, were the most important reasons to choose watchful waiting in 83% of patients, followed by tumor-related factors in 55% of patients. Of the tumors, 47% increased in size. The estimated tumor diameter increase in 1 year was 4.46 mm for infiltrative/micronodular BCCs and 1.06 mm for nodular, superficial, or clinical BCCs. Tumor growth was not associated with initial tumor size and location.

The most common reasons to initiate active treatment were tumor burden, resolved reasons for watchful waiting, and reevaluation of patient-related factors.

“All patients should be followed up regularly to determine whether a watchful waiting approach is still suited and if patients still prefer watchful waiting to reconsider the consequences of refraining from treatment,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that, while the observational and retrospective design was a limitation of the study, this allowed the authors to observe patients avoiding or delaying treatment for BCC in real clinical practice.

The study “shows that few patients developed new symptoms, and few patients who decided to treat after a delay had more invasive interventions than originally anticipated, an encouraging result as we continue to study the option and hone the details of active surveillance in BCC,” Dr. Wehner wrote. “It is important to note that the authors did not perform actual active surveillance. This study did not prospectively enroll patients and see them in follow-up at set times, nor did it have prespecified end points for recommending treatment.”

“Before evidence-based active surveillance in BCC can become a viable option, prospective studies of active surveillance, with specified follow-up times and clear outcome measures, are needed,” Dr. Wehner wrote.

Dr. van Winden did not report any conflicts of interest.

In patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC), watchful waiting may be more suitable than active treatment for patients with asymptomatic nodular or superficial BCC and a limited life expectancy, according to a study published in JAMA Dermatology.

“Patient preferences, treatment goals, and the option for proceeding with a watchful waiting approach should be discussed as part of personalized shared decision-making,” wrote Marieke van Winden, MD, MSc, of Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. “In patients with a limited life expectancy and asymptomatic low-risk tumors, the time to benefit from treatment might exceed life expectancy, and watchful waiting should be discussed as a potentially appropriate approach.”

As little research has been undertaken on watchful waiting in patients with BCC, the expected tumor growth, progression and the chance of developing symptoms while taking this approach are poorly understood. Patients with limited life expectancy might not live long enough to develop BCC symptoms and may benefit more from watchful waiting than active treatment, authors of the study wrote.

This observational cohort study evaluated the reasons for watchful waiting, along with the natural course of 280 BCCs in 89 patients (53% men, median age 83 years) who chose this approach. Patients had one or more untreated BCCs for at least 3 months and the median follow-up was 9 months. The researchers also looked at the reasons for initiating later treatment.

Patient-related factors, including limited life expectancy, comorbidity prioritizations, and frailty, were the most important reasons to choose watchful waiting in 83% of patients, followed by tumor-related factors in 55% of patients. Of the tumors, 47% increased in size. The estimated tumor diameter increase in 1 year was 4.46 mm for infiltrative/micronodular BCCs and 1.06 mm for nodular, superficial, or clinical BCCs. Tumor growth was not associated with initial tumor size and location.

The most common reasons to initiate active treatment were tumor burden, resolved reasons for watchful waiting, and reevaluation of patient-related factors.

“All patients should be followed up regularly to determine whether a watchful waiting approach is still suited and if patients still prefer watchful waiting to reconsider the consequences of refraining from treatment,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that, while the observational and retrospective design was a limitation of the study, this allowed the authors to observe patients avoiding or delaying treatment for BCC in real clinical practice.

The study “shows that few patients developed new symptoms, and few patients who decided to treat after a delay had more invasive interventions than originally anticipated, an encouraging result as we continue to study the option and hone the details of active surveillance in BCC,” Dr. Wehner wrote. “It is important to note that the authors did not perform actual active surveillance. This study did not prospectively enroll patients and see them in follow-up at set times, nor did it have prespecified end points for recommending treatment.”

“Before evidence-based active surveillance in BCC can become a viable option, prospective studies of active surveillance, with specified follow-up times and clear outcome measures, are needed,” Dr. Wehner wrote.

Dr. van Winden did not report any conflicts of interest.