Immunotherapy

A growing body of research suggests that clinicians can offer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy safely and effectively on an outpatient basis — a positive development as clinicians strive to expand access beyond metropolitan areas.

In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). 

Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment. 

“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.” 
 

Great Outcomes, Low Access

Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”

Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”

As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.

“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”

A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications. 
 

Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle

Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview. 

“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.

Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.

“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”

A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted. 
 

Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community 

Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.

The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.

As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
 

Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial

As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized. 

Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.

“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”

In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”

And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting. 

Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
 

Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care

Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”

Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.

Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
 

What’s Next for Access to Therapy?

Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said. 

Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”

These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”

Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”

Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research suggests that clinicians can offer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy safely and effectively on an outpatient basis — a positive development as clinicians strive to expand access beyond metropolitan areas.

In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). 

Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment. 

“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.” 
 

Great Outcomes, Low Access

Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”

Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”

As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.

“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”

A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications. 
 

Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle

Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview. 

“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.

Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.

“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”

A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted. 
 

Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community 

Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.

The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.

As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
 

Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial

As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized. 

Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.

“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”

In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”

And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting. 

Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
 

Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care

Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”

Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.

Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
 

What’s Next for Access to Therapy?

Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said. 

Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”

These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”

Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”

Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research suggests that clinicians can offer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy safely and effectively on an outpatient basis — a positive development as clinicians strive to expand access beyond metropolitan areas.

In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). 

Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment. 

“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.” 
 

Great Outcomes, Low Access

Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”

Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”

As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.

“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”

A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications. 
 

Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle

Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview. 

“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.

Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.

“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”

A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted. 
 

Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community 

Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.

The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.

As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
 

Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial

As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized. 

Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.

“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”

In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”

And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting. 

Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
 

Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care

Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”

Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.

Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
 

What’s Next for Access to Therapy?

Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said. 

Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”

These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”

Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”

Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Thanks to the continuously improving treatment options for cancer, the number of cancer survivors is increasing, and a large proportion of survivors is confronted with the long-term effects of cancer treatment. Especially for young patients, the question of the impact of therapy on fertility arises.

Dose adjustment or modification of the treatment regimen can achieve a lot. But experts at the congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2024 noted that knowledge about newer treatment options like immunotherapies is still insufficient.
 

Therapy Selection

The question of preserving fertility must be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment, said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, medical oncology consultant at the University of Genoa in Genoa, Italy. A patient’s age, the type of therapy, and the dose are crucial in determining whether or how much fertility is affected. “Preserving fertility is also an aim of cancer therapy,” he said.

Lambertini, who is also a member of the ESMO Guideline Group on fertility preservation in cancer patients, referred to the 2020 ESMO guidelines, which list the gonadotoxicity of a substance depending on the treatment regimen and the patient’s age.

Isabelle Demeestere, MD, PhD, director of the research lab for human reproduction at the Erasmus Hospital of the Free University of Brussels in Brussels, Belgium, pointed out the limitations of general guidelines. “Therapies change over time, and a classification must be updated regularly.”

Knowledge gaps related to well-known therapies and many novel options persist. “For many FDA-approved medications, there are either no fertility data or only preclinical data available,” she added.
 

Chemotherapies and Immunotherapies

Chemotherapies with alkylating or platinum-containing substances are known for their effects on oocytes, follicle maturation, and spermatogenesis, said Demeestere.

Chemotherapy is gonadotoxic and leads to a temporary decrease in sperm quality or temporary azoospermia in men.

These effects, however, can lead to permanent azoospermia and endocrine disorders, depending on the dose, duration, or combination with radiation, said Demeestere.

Cryopreservation of sperm should always be performed before starting treatment. For high-risk patients who are prepubertal, samples of testicular tissue are taken.

In women, chemotherapy affects primordial follicles and follicle maturation through DNA damage. This process results in severe or temporary amenorrhea, a temporary or permanent decrease in egg reserve, and ultimately premature egg insufficiency.

Novel immunotherapies also influence fertility, presumably through interactions of the immune system with the reproductive organs. But insufficient data are available, according to Lambertini, who emphasized that “these data are urgently needed, especially for young patients with cancer.”

In a mouse model, immune checkpoint inhibitors affected ovarian function, and the inflammatory reaction in humans can affect fertility. No long-term data are available for women yet, however, explained Demeestere. The effects of other therapeutics such as PARP, CDK4/6, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab, are only seen sporadically.

In the PENELOPE-B phase 3 study, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib did not affect ovarian function, even though the cyclin-dependent kinases play an important role in mitotic arrest, said Demeestere.
 

Adjusting the Regimen

In a PET-guided approach, Demeestere’s research team investigated the effects of dose reduction or adjustment of the treatment regimen of procarbazine and cyclophosphamide on the fertility of patients younger than 45 years with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.

By regularly controlling tumor growth with PET, the treatment could be adjusted so that the effect on egg reserve or spermatogenesis was significantly reduced and loss of fertility could be prevented.

During the 5-year follow-up period, the ovarian function of participating women was assessed by the serum concentration of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) to evaluate egg reserve. In men, testicular function was assessed at the beginning of the study. At the end of treatment, sperm analysis and FSH and testosterone levels were checked.

Demeestere and colleagues demonstrated that dose reduction or altering the treatment regimen for patients who responded early to treatment (determined by PET-guided monitoring) reduced the risk for gonadotoxicity from 46% to 14.5%. That is, the risk was reduced by more than half.

FSH and AMH correlated with the patient’s age and the dose of the alkylating agent. In men, sperm parameters recovered after dose or agent adjustment compared with the unchanged treatment regimen.

Newer results from the PHERGain study in women with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer also provided hope, according to Demeestere. Under PET-guided control, chemotherapy could be reduced.
 

More Data Needed

The new treatment options pose a challenge to preserving fertility during cancer treatment, said Demeestere.

For new targeted therapies, uniform recommendations cannot be issued because of the lack of data and varying treatment durations. Still, the new therapies are safer than chemotherapy.

The need to collect data on fertility and long-term effects in cancer survivors in clinical studies is also reflected in the literature, according to Demeestere. “There are more review articles on this topic than clinical studies.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Thanks to the continuously improving treatment options for cancer, the number of cancer survivors is increasing, and a large proportion of survivors is confronted with the long-term effects of cancer treatment. Especially for young patients, the question of the impact of therapy on fertility arises.

Dose adjustment or modification of the treatment regimen can achieve a lot. But experts at the congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2024 noted that knowledge about newer treatment options like immunotherapies is still insufficient.
 

Therapy Selection

The question of preserving fertility must be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment, said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, medical oncology consultant at the University of Genoa in Genoa, Italy. A patient’s age, the type of therapy, and the dose are crucial in determining whether or how much fertility is affected. “Preserving fertility is also an aim of cancer therapy,” he said.

Lambertini, who is also a member of the ESMO Guideline Group on fertility preservation in cancer patients, referred to the 2020 ESMO guidelines, which list the gonadotoxicity of a substance depending on the treatment regimen and the patient’s age.

Isabelle Demeestere, MD, PhD, director of the research lab for human reproduction at the Erasmus Hospital of the Free University of Brussels in Brussels, Belgium, pointed out the limitations of general guidelines. “Therapies change over time, and a classification must be updated regularly.”

Knowledge gaps related to well-known therapies and many novel options persist. “For many FDA-approved medications, there are either no fertility data or only preclinical data available,” she added.
 

Chemotherapies and Immunotherapies

Chemotherapies with alkylating or platinum-containing substances are known for their effects on oocytes, follicle maturation, and spermatogenesis, said Demeestere.

Chemotherapy is gonadotoxic and leads to a temporary decrease in sperm quality or temporary azoospermia in men.

These effects, however, can lead to permanent azoospermia and endocrine disorders, depending on the dose, duration, or combination with radiation, said Demeestere.

Cryopreservation of sperm should always be performed before starting treatment. For high-risk patients who are prepubertal, samples of testicular tissue are taken.

In women, chemotherapy affects primordial follicles and follicle maturation through DNA damage. This process results in severe or temporary amenorrhea, a temporary or permanent decrease in egg reserve, and ultimately premature egg insufficiency.

Novel immunotherapies also influence fertility, presumably through interactions of the immune system with the reproductive organs. But insufficient data are available, according to Lambertini, who emphasized that “these data are urgently needed, especially for young patients with cancer.”

In a mouse model, immune checkpoint inhibitors affected ovarian function, and the inflammatory reaction in humans can affect fertility. No long-term data are available for women yet, however, explained Demeestere. The effects of other therapeutics such as PARP, CDK4/6, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab, are only seen sporadically.

In the PENELOPE-B phase 3 study, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib did not affect ovarian function, even though the cyclin-dependent kinases play an important role in mitotic arrest, said Demeestere.
 

Adjusting the Regimen

In a PET-guided approach, Demeestere’s research team investigated the effects of dose reduction or adjustment of the treatment regimen of procarbazine and cyclophosphamide on the fertility of patients younger than 45 years with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.

By regularly controlling tumor growth with PET, the treatment could be adjusted so that the effect on egg reserve or spermatogenesis was significantly reduced and loss of fertility could be prevented.

During the 5-year follow-up period, the ovarian function of participating women was assessed by the serum concentration of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) to evaluate egg reserve. In men, testicular function was assessed at the beginning of the study. At the end of treatment, sperm analysis and FSH and testosterone levels were checked.

Demeestere and colleagues demonstrated that dose reduction or altering the treatment regimen for patients who responded early to treatment (determined by PET-guided monitoring) reduced the risk for gonadotoxicity from 46% to 14.5%. That is, the risk was reduced by more than half.

FSH and AMH correlated with the patient’s age and the dose of the alkylating agent. In men, sperm parameters recovered after dose or agent adjustment compared with the unchanged treatment regimen.

Newer results from the PHERGain study in women with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer also provided hope, according to Demeestere. Under PET-guided control, chemotherapy could be reduced.
 

More Data Needed

The new treatment options pose a challenge to preserving fertility during cancer treatment, said Demeestere.

For new targeted therapies, uniform recommendations cannot be issued because of the lack of data and varying treatment durations. Still, the new therapies are safer than chemotherapy.

The need to collect data on fertility and long-term effects in cancer survivors in clinical studies is also reflected in the literature, according to Demeestere. “There are more review articles on this topic than clinical studies.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Thanks to the continuously improving treatment options for cancer, the number of cancer survivors is increasing, and a large proportion of survivors is confronted with the long-term effects of cancer treatment. Especially for young patients, the question of the impact of therapy on fertility arises.

Dose adjustment or modification of the treatment regimen can achieve a lot. But experts at the congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2024 noted that knowledge about newer treatment options like immunotherapies is still insufficient.
 

Therapy Selection

The question of preserving fertility must be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment, said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, medical oncology consultant at the University of Genoa in Genoa, Italy. A patient’s age, the type of therapy, and the dose are crucial in determining whether or how much fertility is affected. “Preserving fertility is also an aim of cancer therapy,” he said.

Lambertini, who is also a member of the ESMO Guideline Group on fertility preservation in cancer patients, referred to the 2020 ESMO guidelines, which list the gonadotoxicity of a substance depending on the treatment regimen and the patient’s age.

Isabelle Demeestere, MD, PhD, director of the research lab for human reproduction at the Erasmus Hospital of the Free University of Brussels in Brussels, Belgium, pointed out the limitations of general guidelines. “Therapies change over time, and a classification must be updated regularly.”

Knowledge gaps related to well-known therapies and many novel options persist. “For many FDA-approved medications, there are either no fertility data or only preclinical data available,” she added.
 

Chemotherapies and Immunotherapies

Chemotherapies with alkylating or platinum-containing substances are known for their effects on oocytes, follicle maturation, and spermatogenesis, said Demeestere.

Chemotherapy is gonadotoxic and leads to a temporary decrease in sperm quality or temporary azoospermia in men.

These effects, however, can lead to permanent azoospermia and endocrine disorders, depending on the dose, duration, or combination with radiation, said Demeestere.

Cryopreservation of sperm should always be performed before starting treatment. For high-risk patients who are prepubertal, samples of testicular tissue are taken.

In women, chemotherapy affects primordial follicles and follicle maturation through DNA damage. This process results in severe or temporary amenorrhea, a temporary or permanent decrease in egg reserve, and ultimately premature egg insufficiency.

Novel immunotherapies also influence fertility, presumably through interactions of the immune system with the reproductive organs. But insufficient data are available, according to Lambertini, who emphasized that “these data are urgently needed, especially for young patients with cancer.”

In a mouse model, immune checkpoint inhibitors affected ovarian function, and the inflammatory reaction in humans can affect fertility. No long-term data are available for women yet, however, explained Demeestere. The effects of other therapeutics such as PARP, CDK4/6, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab, are only seen sporadically.

In the PENELOPE-B phase 3 study, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib did not affect ovarian function, even though the cyclin-dependent kinases play an important role in mitotic arrest, said Demeestere.
 

Adjusting the Regimen

In a PET-guided approach, Demeestere’s research team investigated the effects of dose reduction or adjustment of the treatment regimen of procarbazine and cyclophosphamide on the fertility of patients younger than 45 years with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.

By regularly controlling tumor growth with PET, the treatment could be adjusted so that the effect on egg reserve or spermatogenesis was significantly reduced and loss of fertility could be prevented.

During the 5-year follow-up period, the ovarian function of participating women was assessed by the serum concentration of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) to evaluate egg reserve. In men, testicular function was assessed at the beginning of the study. At the end of treatment, sperm analysis and FSH and testosterone levels were checked.

Demeestere and colleagues demonstrated that dose reduction or altering the treatment regimen for patients who responded early to treatment (determined by PET-guided monitoring) reduced the risk for gonadotoxicity from 46% to 14.5%. That is, the risk was reduced by more than half.

FSH and AMH correlated with the patient’s age and the dose of the alkylating agent. In men, sperm parameters recovered after dose or agent adjustment compared with the unchanged treatment regimen.

Newer results from the PHERGain study in women with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer also provided hope, according to Demeestere. Under PET-guided control, chemotherapy could be reduced.
 

More Data Needed

The new treatment options pose a challenge to preserving fertility during cancer treatment, said Demeestere.

For new targeted therapies, uniform recommendations cannot be issued because of the lack of data and varying treatment durations. Still, the new therapies are safer than chemotherapy.

The need to collect data on fertility and long-term effects in cancer survivors in clinical studies is also reflected in the literature, according to Demeestere. “There are more review articles on this topic than clinical studies.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2024, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is honoring two US researchers with the Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of a fundamental principle of how gene activity is regulated. Victor Ambros, PhD, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, and Gary Ruvkun, PhD, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, discovered microRNAs, a new class of RNA molecules.

“Their groundbreaking discovery in the small worm Caenorhabditis elegans revealed a completely new principle of gene regulation. This turned out to be essential for multicellular organisms, including humans,” said the Nobel Assembly in a statement.
 

Protein Expression 

Genetic information flows from DNA during transcription to messenger RNA (mRNA) and then to protein biosynthesis. In that stage, mRNAs are translated so that proteins are produced according to the genetic instructions stored in the DNA.

Different cell types or tissues express unique sets of proteins, however. This specialized expression results from precise regulation of gene activity, so that in each cell type, only the correct set of genes is active. In this way, for example, muscle cells, intestinal cells, and various types of nerve cells can fulfill their functions.

Furthermore, gene activity must constantly be fine-tuned to adapt cell functions to changing conditions in our body and environment. When gene regulation goes awry, it can lead to serious outcomes such as cancer, diabetes, or autoimmune diseases. Therefore, understanding the regulation of gene activity has been an important goal for many decades.

In the 1960s, researchers had shown that specialized proteins called transcription factors bind to specific regions of DNA and control the flow of genetic information by determining which mRNAs are produced. Since that time, thousands of transcription factors have been identified. For a long time, scientists thought that the main principles of gene regulation were understood. 
 

Roundworm Research 

In the late 1980s, Dr. Ambros and Dr. Ruvkun were postdoctoral researchers in the laboratory of Robert Horvitz, PhD, who received the Nobel Prize in 2002 with Sydney Brenner and John Sulston. In Dr. Horvitz’s laboratory, they studied the relatively inconspicuous, 1-mm long roundworm C elegans.

Despite its small size, C elegans has many specialized cell types such as nerve and muscle cells that are also found in larger, more complex animals. These features make it a popular animal model.

Dr. Ambros and Dr. Ruvkun were interested in genes that ensure that different cell types develop at the right time. They examined two mutated worm strains, lin-4 and lin-14, that exhibited defects in the temporal activation of specific genes during development. The laureates wanted to identify mutated genes and understand their function.

Dr. Ambros had previously shown that lin-4 appeared to be a negative regulator of lin-14. But how lin-14 activity was blocked was unknown.
 

Collaboration Yields Breakthrough

After his postdoctoral years, Dr. Ambros analyzed the lin-4 mutant in his newly established laboratory at Harvard University. Systematic mapping allowed the cloning of the gene and led to an unexpected result: lin-4 produced an unusually short RNA molecule that lacked a code for protein synthesis. These surprising results suggested that this small RNA from lin-4 was responsible for inhibiting lin-14. 

At the same time, Dr. Ruvkun, in his newly founded laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, studied the regulation of lin-14. In contradiction to the current understanding of gene regulation, he showed that it was not the production of lin-14 mRNA that was inhibited by lin-4. The regulation seems to occur at a later stage in the gene expression process, namely through the shutdown of protein synthesis. In addition, a section in lin-14 mRNA was discovered to be necessary for inhibition by lin-4.

The two laureates compared their results, leading to a groundbreaking discovery. The short lin-4 sequence matched complementary sequences in the relevant section of the lin-14 mRNA. Dr. Ambros and Dr. Ruvkun conducted further experiments showing that the lin-4 microRNA silences lin-14 by binding to the complementary sequences of its mRNA, thus blocking the production of the lin-14 protein. A new principle of gene regulation, mediated by a previously unknown type of RNA, the microRNA, had been discovered.
 

Subdued Initial Response

The results were published in Cell in 1993 and initially received little attention. However, interest grew in 2000 when Dr. Ruvkun’s research group published the discovery of another microRNA encoded by let-7.

In contrast to lin-4, let-7 was highly conserved and present throughout the animal kingdom. The article sparked great interest. In the following years, hundreds of microRNAs were identified. Today, researchers know that there are more than 1000 genes for various microRNAs in humans and that gene regulation by microRNAs is found in all multicellular organisms.

In addition to mapping new microRNAs, experiments by several research groups have elucidated fundamental mechanisms. Their binding leads to inhibition of protein synthesis or degradation of mRNA. Interestingly, a single microRNA can regulate the expression of many genes. Conversely, a single gene can be regulated by multiple microRNAs, thus coordinating and fine-tuning entire gene networks.

The cellular machinery for producing functional microRNAs is also used to produce other small RNA molecules in plants and animals, for example, as a means of protecting plants from viral infections. Andrew Z. Fire and Craig C. Mello, who were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2006, described RNA interference, in which specific mRNA molecules are inactivated by the addition of double-stranded RNA molecules to cells.
 

Small RNAs, Great Importance

Gene regulation by microRNA has likely existed for hundreds of millions of years. This mechanism has enabled the evolution of increasingly complex organisms.

From genetic research, it is known that cells and tissues do not develop normally without microRNAs. Abnormal regulation can lead to cancer. Mutations in genes encoding microRNAs cause, among other things, congenital deafness and eye and skeletal diseases. And mutations in one of the proteins required for microRNA production lead to the DICER1 syndrome, a rare but severe syndrome associated with cancer in various organs and tissues.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2024, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is honoring two US researchers with the Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of a fundamental principle of how gene activity is regulated. Victor Ambros, PhD, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, and Gary Ruvkun, PhD, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, discovered microRNAs, a new class of RNA molecules.

“Their groundbreaking discovery in the small worm Caenorhabditis elegans revealed a completely new principle of gene regulation. This turned out to be essential for multicellular organisms, including humans,” said the Nobel Assembly in a statement.
 

Protein Expression 

Genetic information flows from DNA during transcription to messenger RNA (mRNA) and then to protein biosynthesis. In that stage, mRNAs are translated so that proteins are produced according to the genetic instructions stored in the DNA.

Different cell types or tissues express unique sets of proteins, however. This specialized expression results from precise regulation of gene activity, so that in each cell type, only the correct set of genes is active. In this way, for example, muscle cells, intestinal cells, and various types of nerve cells can fulfill their functions.

Furthermore, gene activity must constantly be fine-tuned to adapt cell functions to changing conditions in our body and environment. When gene regulation goes awry, it can lead to serious outcomes such as cancer, diabetes, or autoimmune diseases. Therefore, understanding the regulation of gene activity has been an important goal for many decades.

In the 1960s, researchers had shown that specialized proteins called transcription factors bind to specific regions of DNA and control the flow of genetic information by determining which mRNAs are produced. Since that time, thousands of transcription factors have been identified. For a long time, scientists thought that the main principles of gene regulation were understood. 
 

Roundworm Research 

In the late 1980s, Dr. Ambros and Dr. Ruvkun were postdoctoral researchers in the laboratory of Robert Horvitz, PhD, who received the Nobel Prize in 2002 with Sydney Brenner and John Sulston. In Dr. Horvitz’s laboratory, they studied the relatively inconspicuous, 1-mm long roundworm C elegans.

Despite its small size, C elegans has many specialized cell types such as nerve and muscle cells that are also found in larger, more complex animals. These features make it a popular animal model.

Dr. Ambros and Dr. Ruvkun were interested in genes that ensure that different cell types develop at the right time. They examined two mutated worm strains, lin-4 and lin-14, that exhibited defects in the temporal activation of specific genes during development. The laureates wanted to identify mutated genes and understand their function.

Dr. Ambros had previously shown that lin-4 appeared to be a negative regulator of lin-14. But how lin-14 activity was blocked was unknown.
 

Collaboration Yields Breakthrough

After his postdoctoral years, Dr. Ambros analyzed the lin-4 mutant in his newly established laboratory at Harvard University. Systematic mapping allowed the cloning of the gene and led to an unexpected result: lin-4 produced an unusually short RNA molecule that lacked a code for protein synthesis. These surprising results suggested that this small RNA from lin-4 was responsible for inhibiting lin-14. 

At the same time, Dr. Ruvkun, in his newly founded laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, studied the regulation of lin-14. In contradiction to the current understanding of gene regulation, he showed that it was not the production of lin-14 mRNA that was inhibited by lin-4. The regulation seems to occur at a later stage in the gene expression process, namely through the shutdown of protein synthesis. In addition, a section in lin-14 mRNA was discovered to be necessary for inhibition by lin-4.

The two laureates compared their results, leading to a groundbreaking discovery. The short lin-4 sequence matched complementary sequences in the relevant section of the lin-14 mRNA. Dr. Ambros and Dr. Ruvkun conducted further experiments showing that the lin-4 microRNA silences lin-14 by binding to the complementary sequences of its mRNA, thus blocking the production of the lin-14 protein. A new principle of gene regulation, mediated by a previously unknown type of RNA, the microRNA, had been discovered.
 

Subdued Initial Response

The results were published in Cell in 1993 and initially received little attention. However, interest grew in 2000 when Dr. Ruvkun’s research group published the discovery of another microRNA encoded by let-7.

In contrast to lin-4, let-7 was highly conserved and present throughout the animal kingdom. The article sparked great interest. In the following years, hundreds of microRNAs were identified. Today, researchers know that there are more than 1000 genes for various microRNAs in humans and that gene regulation by microRNAs is found in all multicellular organisms.

In addition to mapping new microRNAs, experiments by several research groups have elucidated fundamental mechanisms. Their binding leads to inhibition of protein synthesis or degradation of mRNA. Interestingly, a single microRNA can regulate the expression of many genes. Conversely, a single gene can be regulated by multiple microRNAs, thus coordinating and fine-tuning entire gene networks.

The cellular machinery for producing functional microRNAs is also used to produce other small RNA molecules in plants and animals, for example, as a means of protecting plants from viral infections. Andrew Z. Fire and Craig C. Mello, who were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2006, described RNA interference, in which specific mRNA molecules are inactivated by the addition of double-stranded RNA molecules to cells.
 

Small RNAs, Great Importance

Gene regulation by microRNA has likely existed for hundreds of millions of years. This mechanism has enabled the evolution of increasingly complex organisms.

From genetic research, it is known that cells and tissues do not develop normally without microRNAs. Abnormal regulation can lead to cancer. Mutations in genes encoding microRNAs cause, among other things, congenital deafness and eye and skeletal diseases. And mutations in one of the proteins required for microRNA production lead to the DICER1 syndrome, a rare but severe syndrome associated with cancer in various organs and tissues.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2024, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is honoring two US researchers with the Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of a fundamental principle of how gene activity is regulated. Victor Ambros, PhD, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, and Gary Ruvkun, PhD, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, discovered microRNAs, a new class of RNA molecules.

“Their groundbreaking discovery in the small worm Caenorhabditis elegans revealed a completely new principle of gene regulation. This turned out to be essential for multicellular organisms, including humans,” said the Nobel Assembly in a statement.
 

Protein Expression 

Genetic information flows from DNA during transcription to messenger RNA (mRNA) and then to protein biosynthesis. In that stage, mRNAs are translated so that proteins are produced according to the genetic instructions stored in the DNA.

Different cell types or tissues express unique sets of proteins, however. This specialized expression results from precise regulation of gene activity, so that in each cell type, only the correct set of genes is active. In this way, for example, muscle cells, intestinal cells, and various types of nerve cells can fulfill their functions.

Furthermore, gene activity must constantly be fine-tuned to adapt cell functions to changing conditions in our body and environment. When gene regulation goes awry, it can lead to serious outcomes such as cancer, diabetes, or autoimmune diseases. Therefore, understanding the regulation of gene activity has been an important goal for many decades.

In the 1960s, researchers had shown that specialized proteins called transcription factors bind to specific regions of DNA and control the flow of genetic information by determining which mRNAs are produced. Since that time, thousands of transcription factors have been identified. For a long time, scientists thought that the main principles of gene regulation were understood. 
 

Roundworm Research 

In the late 1980s, Dr. Ambros and Dr. Ruvkun were postdoctoral researchers in the laboratory of Robert Horvitz, PhD, who received the Nobel Prize in 2002 with Sydney Brenner and John Sulston. In Dr. Horvitz’s laboratory, they studied the relatively inconspicuous, 1-mm long roundworm C elegans.

Despite its small size, C elegans has many specialized cell types such as nerve and muscle cells that are also found in larger, more complex animals. These features make it a popular animal model.

Dr. Ambros and Dr. Ruvkun were interested in genes that ensure that different cell types develop at the right time. They examined two mutated worm strains, lin-4 and lin-14, that exhibited defects in the temporal activation of specific genes during development. The laureates wanted to identify mutated genes and understand their function.

Dr. Ambros had previously shown that lin-4 appeared to be a negative regulator of lin-14. But how lin-14 activity was blocked was unknown.
 

Collaboration Yields Breakthrough

After his postdoctoral years, Dr. Ambros analyzed the lin-4 mutant in his newly established laboratory at Harvard University. Systematic mapping allowed the cloning of the gene and led to an unexpected result: lin-4 produced an unusually short RNA molecule that lacked a code for protein synthesis. These surprising results suggested that this small RNA from lin-4 was responsible for inhibiting lin-14. 

At the same time, Dr. Ruvkun, in his newly founded laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, studied the regulation of lin-14. In contradiction to the current understanding of gene regulation, he showed that it was not the production of lin-14 mRNA that was inhibited by lin-4. The regulation seems to occur at a later stage in the gene expression process, namely through the shutdown of protein synthesis. In addition, a section in lin-14 mRNA was discovered to be necessary for inhibition by lin-4.

The two laureates compared their results, leading to a groundbreaking discovery. The short lin-4 sequence matched complementary sequences in the relevant section of the lin-14 mRNA. Dr. Ambros and Dr. Ruvkun conducted further experiments showing that the lin-4 microRNA silences lin-14 by binding to the complementary sequences of its mRNA, thus blocking the production of the lin-14 protein. A new principle of gene regulation, mediated by a previously unknown type of RNA, the microRNA, had been discovered.
 

Subdued Initial Response

The results were published in Cell in 1993 and initially received little attention. However, interest grew in 2000 when Dr. Ruvkun’s research group published the discovery of another microRNA encoded by let-7.

In contrast to lin-4, let-7 was highly conserved and present throughout the animal kingdom. The article sparked great interest. In the following years, hundreds of microRNAs were identified. Today, researchers know that there are more than 1000 genes for various microRNAs in humans and that gene regulation by microRNAs is found in all multicellular organisms.

In addition to mapping new microRNAs, experiments by several research groups have elucidated fundamental mechanisms. Their binding leads to inhibition of protein synthesis or degradation of mRNA. Interestingly, a single microRNA can regulate the expression of many genes. Conversely, a single gene can be regulated by multiple microRNAs, thus coordinating and fine-tuning entire gene networks.

The cellular machinery for producing functional microRNAs is also used to produce other small RNA molecules in plants and animals, for example, as a means of protecting plants from viral infections. Andrew Z. Fire and Craig C. Mello, who were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2006, described RNA interference, in which specific mRNA molecules are inactivated by the addition of double-stranded RNA molecules to cells.
 

Small RNAs, Great Importance

Gene regulation by microRNA has likely existed for hundreds of millions of years. This mechanism has enabled the evolution of increasingly complex organisms.

From genetic research, it is known that cells and tissues do not develop normally without microRNAs. Abnormal regulation can lead to cancer. Mutations in genes encoding microRNAs cause, among other things, congenital deafness and eye and skeletal diseases. And mutations in one of the proteins required for microRNA production lead to the DICER1 syndrome, a rare but severe syndrome associated with cancer in various organs and tissues.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Late last week, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel met to discuss whether to limit the use of nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative, microsatellite stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

During the meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted in favor of restricting the use of these immunotherapy agents to patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of 1% or higher. 

The agency usually follows the ODAC’s advice.

The FDA had originally approved the two immune checkpoint inhibitors for both indications in combination with chemotherapy, regardless of patients’ PD-L1 status. The FDA had also approved nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for esophageal cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression. The approvals were based on overall benefit in intent-to-treat populations, not on specific PD-L1 expression subgroups.

Since then, additional studies — including the agency’s own pooled analyses of the approval trials — have found that overall survival benefits are limited to patients with PD-L1 expression of 1% or higher.

These findings have raised concerns that patients with no or low PD-L1 expression face the risks associated with immunotherapy, which include death, but minimal to no benefits.

In response, the FDA has considered changing the labeling for these indications to require a PD-L1 cutoff point of 1% or higher. The move would mirror guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network that already recommend use with chemotherapy only at certain PD-L1 cutoffs.

Before the agency acts, however, the FDA wanted the advice of the ODAC. It asked the 14-member panel whether the risk-benefit assessment is “favorable for the use of PD-1 inhibitors in first line” for the two indications among patients with PD-L1 expression below 1%.

In two nearly unanimous decisions for each indication, the panel voted that risk-benefit assessment was not favorable. In other words, the risks do outweigh the benefits for this patient population with no or low PD-L1 expression.

The determination also applies to tislelizumab (Tevimbra), an immune checkpoint inhibitor under review by the FDA for the same indications.

Voting came after hours of testimony from FDA scientists and the three drug companies involved in the decisions.

Merck, maker of pembrolizumab, was against any labeling change. Nivolumab’s maker, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), also wanted to stick with the current PD-L1 agnostic indications but said that any indication change should be class-wide to avoid confusion. BeiGene USA, maker of tislelizumab, had no problem with a PD-L1 cutoff of 1% because its approval trial showed benefit only in patients at that level or higher.

In general, Merck and BMS said the drug benefits correspond with higher PD-L1 expression but noted that patients with low or no PD-L1 expression can sometimes benefit from treatment. The companies had several patients testify to the benefits of the agents and noted patients like this would likely lose access. But an ODAC panelist noted that patients who died from immunotherapy complications weren’t there to respond.

The companies also expressed concern about taking treatment decisions out of the hands of oncologists as well as the need for additional biopsies to determine if tumors cross the proposed PD-L1 threshold at some point during treatment. With this potential new restriction, the companies were worried that insurance companies would be even less likely to pay for their checkpoint inhibitors in low or no PD-L1 expressors.

ODAC wasn’t moved. With consistent findings across multiple trials, the strength of the FDA’s data carried the day.

In a pooled analysis of the three companies’ unresectable or metastatic HER2–negative, microsatellite-stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma approval trials across almost 4000 patients, those with PD-L1 levels below 1% did not demonstrate a significant overall survival benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09). The median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was only 1 month more — 13.4 months vs 12.4 months with chemotherapy alone.

FDA’s pooled analysis for unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma also showed no overall survival benefit (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.76-1.58), with a trend suggesting harm. Median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was 14.6 months vs 9.8 months with chemotherapy alone.

Despite the vote on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, panelists had reservations about making decisions based on just over 160 patients with PD-L1 levels below 1% in the three esophageal squamous cell carcinoma trials.

Still, one panelist said, it’s likely “the best dataset we will get.”

The companies all used different methods to test PD-L1 levels, and attendees called for a single standardized PD-L1 test. Richard Pazdur, MD, head of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said the agency has been working with companies for years to get them to agree to such a test, with no luck.

If the FDA ultimately decides to restrict immunotherapy use in this patient population based on PD-L1 levels, insurance company coverage may become more limited. Pazdur asked the companies if they would be willing to expand their patient assistance programs to provide free coverage of immune checkpoint blockers to patients with low or no PD-L1 expression.

BeiGene and BMS seemed open to the idea. Merck said, “We’ll have to ... think about it.”
 

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

Late last week, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel met to discuss whether to limit the use of nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative, microsatellite stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

During the meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted in favor of restricting the use of these immunotherapy agents to patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of 1% or higher. 

The agency usually follows the ODAC’s advice.

The FDA had originally approved the two immune checkpoint inhibitors for both indications in combination with chemotherapy, regardless of patients’ PD-L1 status. The FDA had also approved nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for esophageal cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression. The approvals were based on overall benefit in intent-to-treat populations, not on specific PD-L1 expression subgroups.

Since then, additional studies — including the agency’s own pooled analyses of the approval trials — have found that overall survival benefits are limited to patients with PD-L1 expression of 1% or higher.

These findings have raised concerns that patients with no or low PD-L1 expression face the risks associated with immunotherapy, which include death, but minimal to no benefits.

In response, the FDA has considered changing the labeling for these indications to require a PD-L1 cutoff point of 1% or higher. The move would mirror guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network that already recommend use with chemotherapy only at certain PD-L1 cutoffs.

Before the agency acts, however, the FDA wanted the advice of the ODAC. It asked the 14-member panel whether the risk-benefit assessment is “favorable for the use of PD-1 inhibitors in first line” for the two indications among patients with PD-L1 expression below 1%.

In two nearly unanimous decisions for each indication, the panel voted that risk-benefit assessment was not favorable. In other words, the risks do outweigh the benefits for this patient population with no or low PD-L1 expression.

The determination also applies to tislelizumab (Tevimbra), an immune checkpoint inhibitor under review by the FDA for the same indications.

Voting came after hours of testimony from FDA scientists and the three drug companies involved in the decisions.

Merck, maker of pembrolizumab, was against any labeling change. Nivolumab’s maker, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), also wanted to stick with the current PD-L1 agnostic indications but said that any indication change should be class-wide to avoid confusion. BeiGene USA, maker of tislelizumab, had no problem with a PD-L1 cutoff of 1% because its approval trial showed benefit only in patients at that level or higher.

In general, Merck and BMS said the drug benefits correspond with higher PD-L1 expression but noted that patients with low or no PD-L1 expression can sometimes benefit from treatment. The companies had several patients testify to the benefits of the agents and noted patients like this would likely lose access. But an ODAC panelist noted that patients who died from immunotherapy complications weren’t there to respond.

The companies also expressed concern about taking treatment decisions out of the hands of oncologists as well as the need for additional biopsies to determine if tumors cross the proposed PD-L1 threshold at some point during treatment. With this potential new restriction, the companies were worried that insurance companies would be even less likely to pay for their checkpoint inhibitors in low or no PD-L1 expressors.

ODAC wasn’t moved. With consistent findings across multiple trials, the strength of the FDA’s data carried the day.

In a pooled analysis of the three companies’ unresectable or metastatic HER2–negative, microsatellite-stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma approval trials across almost 4000 patients, those with PD-L1 levels below 1% did not demonstrate a significant overall survival benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09). The median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was only 1 month more — 13.4 months vs 12.4 months with chemotherapy alone.

FDA’s pooled analysis for unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma also showed no overall survival benefit (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.76-1.58), with a trend suggesting harm. Median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was 14.6 months vs 9.8 months with chemotherapy alone.

Despite the vote on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, panelists had reservations about making decisions based on just over 160 patients with PD-L1 levels below 1% in the three esophageal squamous cell carcinoma trials.

Still, one panelist said, it’s likely “the best dataset we will get.”

The companies all used different methods to test PD-L1 levels, and attendees called for a single standardized PD-L1 test. Richard Pazdur, MD, head of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said the agency has been working with companies for years to get them to agree to such a test, with no luck.

If the FDA ultimately decides to restrict immunotherapy use in this patient population based on PD-L1 levels, insurance company coverage may become more limited. Pazdur asked the companies if they would be willing to expand their patient assistance programs to provide free coverage of immune checkpoint blockers to patients with low or no PD-L1 expression.

BeiGene and BMS seemed open to the idea. Merck said, “We’ll have to ... think about it.”
 

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

Late last week, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel met to discuss whether to limit the use of nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative, microsatellite stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

During the meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted in favor of restricting the use of these immunotherapy agents to patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of 1% or higher. 

The agency usually follows the ODAC’s advice.

The FDA had originally approved the two immune checkpoint inhibitors for both indications in combination with chemotherapy, regardless of patients’ PD-L1 status. The FDA had also approved nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for esophageal cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression. The approvals were based on overall benefit in intent-to-treat populations, not on specific PD-L1 expression subgroups.

Since then, additional studies — including the agency’s own pooled analyses of the approval trials — have found that overall survival benefits are limited to patients with PD-L1 expression of 1% or higher.

These findings have raised concerns that patients with no or low PD-L1 expression face the risks associated with immunotherapy, which include death, but minimal to no benefits.

In response, the FDA has considered changing the labeling for these indications to require a PD-L1 cutoff point of 1% or higher. The move would mirror guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network that already recommend use with chemotherapy only at certain PD-L1 cutoffs.

Before the agency acts, however, the FDA wanted the advice of the ODAC. It asked the 14-member panel whether the risk-benefit assessment is “favorable for the use of PD-1 inhibitors in first line” for the two indications among patients with PD-L1 expression below 1%.

In two nearly unanimous decisions for each indication, the panel voted that risk-benefit assessment was not favorable. In other words, the risks do outweigh the benefits for this patient population with no or low PD-L1 expression.

The determination also applies to tislelizumab (Tevimbra), an immune checkpoint inhibitor under review by the FDA for the same indications.

Voting came after hours of testimony from FDA scientists and the three drug companies involved in the decisions.

Merck, maker of pembrolizumab, was against any labeling change. Nivolumab’s maker, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), also wanted to stick with the current PD-L1 agnostic indications but said that any indication change should be class-wide to avoid confusion. BeiGene USA, maker of tislelizumab, had no problem with a PD-L1 cutoff of 1% because its approval trial showed benefit only in patients at that level or higher.

In general, Merck and BMS said the drug benefits correspond with higher PD-L1 expression but noted that patients with low or no PD-L1 expression can sometimes benefit from treatment. The companies had several patients testify to the benefits of the agents and noted patients like this would likely lose access. But an ODAC panelist noted that patients who died from immunotherapy complications weren’t there to respond.

The companies also expressed concern about taking treatment decisions out of the hands of oncologists as well as the need for additional biopsies to determine if tumors cross the proposed PD-L1 threshold at some point during treatment. With this potential new restriction, the companies were worried that insurance companies would be even less likely to pay for their checkpoint inhibitors in low or no PD-L1 expressors.

ODAC wasn’t moved. With consistent findings across multiple trials, the strength of the FDA’s data carried the day.

In a pooled analysis of the three companies’ unresectable or metastatic HER2–negative, microsatellite-stable gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma approval trials across almost 4000 patients, those with PD-L1 levels below 1% did not demonstrate a significant overall survival benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09). The median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was only 1 month more — 13.4 months vs 12.4 months with chemotherapy alone.

FDA’s pooled analysis for unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma also showed no overall survival benefit (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.76-1.58), with a trend suggesting harm. Median overall survival with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy was 14.6 months vs 9.8 months with chemotherapy alone.

Despite the vote on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, panelists had reservations about making decisions based on just over 160 patients with PD-L1 levels below 1% in the three esophageal squamous cell carcinoma trials.

Still, one panelist said, it’s likely “the best dataset we will get.”

The companies all used different methods to test PD-L1 levels, and attendees called for a single standardized PD-L1 test. Richard Pazdur, MD, head of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said the agency has been working with companies for years to get them to agree to such a test, with no luck.

If the FDA ultimately decides to restrict immunotherapy use in this patient population based on PD-L1 levels, insurance company coverage may become more limited. Pazdur asked the companies if they would be willing to expand their patient assistance programs to provide free coverage of immune checkpoint blockers to patients with low or no PD-L1 expression.

BeiGene and BMS seemed open to the idea. Merck said, “We’ll have to ... think about it.”
 

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

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Patients with high-risk stage III resectable melanoma treated with neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy achieved higher event- and recurrence-free survival than patients who received monotherapy with immunotherapy or a targeted agent or targeted therapy plus immunotherapy, according to a large-scale pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.

Importantly, the analysis — presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology — showed that achieving a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy is a key indicator of survival outcomes.

After 3 years of follow-up, the results showed that neoadjuvant therapy is not delaying melanoma recurrence, “it’s actually preventing it,” coinvestigator Hussein A. Tawbi, MD, PhD, Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview. That’s “a big deal.”

Since 2010, the introduction of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies for high-risk stage III resectable melanoma has led to incremental gains for patients, said Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, BSc, chair of Melanoma Medical Oncology and Translational Research at the University of Sydney in Australia, who presented the results.

The first pooled analysis of neoadjuvant therapy in 189 patients, published in 2021, indicated that those who achieved a major pathological response — defined as either a pathological complete response (with no remaining vital tumor) or a near-complete pathological response (with vital tumor ≤ 10%) — had the best recurrence-free survival rates.

In the current study, the researchers expanded their cohort to include 818 patients from 18 centers. Patients received at least one dose of neoadjuvant therapy — either combination immunotherapy, combination of targeted and immunotherapy agents, or monotherapy with either an immune checkpoint inhibitor or a targeted agent.

The median age was 59 years, and 38% of patients were women. The median follow-up so far is 38.8 months.

Overall, the 3-year event-free survival was 74% in patients who received any immunotherapy, 72% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone. Similarly, 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were highest in patients who received immunotherapy at 77% vs 73% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone.

Looking specifically at progressive death 1 (PD-1)–based immunotherapy regimens, combination therapy led to a 3-year event-free survival rate between 77% and 95%, depending on the specific combinations, vs 64% with PD-1 monotherapy and 37% with combination targeted therapy.

Overall, patients who had a major pathological response were more likely to be recurrence free at 3 years. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was 88% in patients with a complete response, 68% in those with a partial pathological response, and 40% in those without a response.

Patients who received immunotherapy were more likely to have major pathological response. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was about 94% in patients who received combination or monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibition, and about 87% in those who received immunotherapy plus targeted therapy. The recurrence-free survival rate was much lower in patients given only BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

The current overall survival data, which are still immature, suggested a few differences when stratifying the patients by treatment. Almost all patients with a major pathological response were alive at 3 years, compared with 86% of those with a partial pathological response and 70% of those without a pathological response.

Overall, the results showed that immunotherapy — as either combination or monotherapy — is “quite a bit” better than targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK agents, which offers no substantial benefit, said Dr. Twabi.

“When you see the same pattern happening in study after study, in a very clear, robust way, it actually becomes very powerful,” he explained.

Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, chair of the ESMO Scientific Committee who was not involved in the study, told a press conference that the introduction of immunotherapy and combination immunotherapy has dramatically changed outcomes in melanoma.

Commenting on the current study results, Dr. Dent said that “combination immunotherapy is clearly showing exceptional stability in terms of long-term benefits.”

The question now is what are the toxicities and costs that come with combination immunotherapy, said Dr. Dent, from National Cancer Centre Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

No funding source was declared. Dr. Long declared relationships with a variety of companies, including AstraZeneca UK Limited, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Twabi declared relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, and others. Dr. Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Patients with high-risk stage III resectable melanoma treated with neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy achieved higher event- and recurrence-free survival than patients who received monotherapy with immunotherapy or a targeted agent or targeted therapy plus immunotherapy, according to a large-scale pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.

Importantly, the analysis — presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology — showed that achieving a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy is a key indicator of survival outcomes.

After 3 years of follow-up, the results showed that neoadjuvant therapy is not delaying melanoma recurrence, “it’s actually preventing it,” coinvestigator Hussein A. Tawbi, MD, PhD, Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview. That’s “a big deal.”

Since 2010, the introduction of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies for high-risk stage III resectable melanoma has led to incremental gains for patients, said Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, BSc, chair of Melanoma Medical Oncology and Translational Research at the University of Sydney in Australia, who presented the results.

The first pooled analysis of neoadjuvant therapy in 189 patients, published in 2021, indicated that those who achieved a major pathological response — defined as either a pathological complete response (with no remaining vital tumor) or a near-complete pathological response (with vital tumor ≤ 10%) — had the best recurrence-free survival rates.

In the current study, the researchers expanded their cohort to include 818 patients from 18 centers. Patients received at least one dose of neoadjuvant therapy — either combination immunotherapy, combination of targeted and immunotherapy agents, or monotherapy with either an immune checkpoint inhibitor or a targeted agent.

The median age was 59 years, and 38% of patients were women. The median follow-up so far is 38.8 months.

Overall, the 3-year event-free survival was 74% in patients who received any immunotherapy, 72% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone. Similarly, 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were highest in patients who received immunotherapy at 77% vs 73% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone.

Looking specifically at progressive death 1 (PD-1)–based immunotherapy regimens, combination therapy led to a 3-year event-free survival rate between 77% and 95%, depending on the specific combinations, vs 64% with PD-1 monotherapy and 37% with combination targeted therapy.

Overall, patients who had a major pathological response were more likely to be recurrence free at 3 years. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was 88% in patients with a complete response, 68% in those with a partial pathological response, and 40% in those without a response.

Patients who received immunotherapy were more likely to have major pathological response. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was about 94% in patients who received combination or monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibition, and about 87% in those who received immunotherapy plus targeted therapy. The recurrence-free survival rate was much lower in patients given only BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

The current overall survival data, which are still immature, suggested a few differences when stratifying the patients by treatment. Almost all patients with a major pathological response were alive at 3 years, compared with 86% of those with a partial pathological response and 70% of those without a pathological response.

Overall, the results showed that immunotherapy — as either combination or monotherapy — is “quite a bit” better than targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK agents, which offers no substantial benefit, said Dr. Twabi.

“When you see the same pattern happening in study after study, in a very clear, robust way, it actually becomes very powerful,” he explained.

Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, chair of the ESMO Scientific Committee who was not involved in the study, told a press conference that the introduction of immunotherapy and combination immunotherapy has dramatically changed outcomes in melanoma.

Commenting on the current study results, Dr. Dent said that “combination immunotherapy is clearly showing exceptional stability in terms of long-term benefits.”

The question now is what are the toxicities and costs that come with combination immunotherapy, said Dr. Dent, from National Cancer Centre Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

No funding source was declared. Dr. Long declared relationships with a variety of companies, including AstraZeneca UK Limited, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Twabi declared relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, and others. Dr. Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Patients with high-risk stage III resectable melanoma treated with neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy achieved higher event- and recurrence-free survival than patients who received monotherapy with immunotherapy or a targeted agent or targeted therapy plus immunotherapy, according to a large-scale pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.

Importantly, the analysis — presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology — showed that achieving a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy is a key indicator of survival outcomes.

After 3 years of follow-up, the results showed that neoadjuvant therapy is not delaying melanoma recurrence, “it’s actually preventing it,” coinvestigator Hussein A. Tawbi, MD, PhD, Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview. That’s “a big deal.”

Since 2010, the introduction of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies for high-risk stage III resectable melanoma has led to incremental gains for patients, said Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, BSc, chair of Melanoma Medical Oncology and Translational Research at the University of Sydney in Australia, who presented the results.

The first pooled analysis of neoadjuvant therapy in 189 patients, published in 2021, indicated that those who achieved a major pathological response — defined as either a pathological complete response (with no remaining vital tumor) or a near-complete pathological response (with vital tumor ≤ 10%) — had the best recurrence-free survival rates.

In the current study, the researchers expanded their cohort to include 818 patients from 18 centers. Patients received at least one dose of neoadjuvant therapy — either combination immunotherapy, combination of targeted and immunotherapy agents, or monotherapy with either an immune checkpoint inhibitor or a targeted agent.

The median age was 59 years, and 38% of patients were women. The median follow-up so far is 38.8 months.

Overall, the 3-year event-free survival was 74% in patients who received any immunotherapy, 72% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone. Similarly, 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were highest in patients who received immunotherapy at 77% vs 73% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone.

Looking specifically at progressive death 1 (PD-1)–based immunotherapy regimens, combination therapy led to a 3-year event-free survival rate between 77% and 95%, depending on the specific combinations, vs 64% with PD-1 monotherapy and 37% with combination targeted therapy.

Overall, patients who had a major pathological response were more likely to be recurrence free at 3 years. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was 88% in patients with a complete response, 68% in those with a partial pathological response, and 40% in those without a response.

Patients who received immunotherapy were more likely to have major pathological response. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was about 94% in patients who received combination or monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibition, and about 87% in those who received immunotherapy plus targeted therapy. The recurrence-free survival rate was much lower in patients given only BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

The current overall survival data, which are still immature, suggested a few differences when stratifying the patients by treatment. Almost all patients with a major pathological response were alive at 3 years, compared with 86% of those with a partial pathological response and 70% of those without a pathological response.

Overall, the results showed that immunotherapy — as either combination or monotherapy — is “quite a bit” better than targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK agents, which offers no substantial benefit, said Dr. Twabi.

“When you see the same pattern happening in study after study, in a very clear, robust way, it actually becomes very powerful,” he explained.

Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, chair of the ESMO Scientific Committee who was not involved in the study, told a press conference that the introduction of immunotherapy and combination immunotherapy has dramatically changed outcomes in melanoma.

Commenting on the current study results, Dr. Dent said that “combination immunotherapy is clearly showing exceptional stability in terms of long-term benefits.”

The question now is what are the toxicities and costs that come with combination immunotherapy, said Dr. Dent, from National Cancer Centre Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

No funding source was declared. Dr. Long declared relationships with a variety of companies, including AstraZeneca UK Limited, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Twabi declared relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, and others. Dr. Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON, DC — Cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs) in oncology patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) should be treated in as targeted a fashion as possible and with judicious usage and dosing of prednisone when deemed necessary, Blair Allais, MD, said during a session on supportive oncodermatology at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in the older patient hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.

“It’s important when you see these patients to be as specific as possible” based on morphology and histopathology, and to treat the rashes in a similar way as in the non-ICI setting,” said Dr. Allais, a dermato-oncologist at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, Virginia.

cirAEs are the most frequently reported and most visible adverse effects of checkpoint inhibition — a treatment that has emerged as a standard therapy for many malignancies since the first ICI was approved in 2011 for metastatic melanoma.

And contrary to what the phenomenon of immunosenescence might suggest, older patients are no less prone to cirAEs than younger patients. “You’d think you’d have fewer rashes and side effects as you age, but that’s not true,” said Dr. Allais, who completed a fellowship in cutaneous oncology after her dermatology residency.

A 2021 multicenter international cohort study of over 900 patients aged ≥ 80 years treated with single-agent ICIs for cancer did not find any significant differences in the development of immune-related adverse events among those younger than 85, those aged 85-89 years, and those 90 and older. Neither did the ELDERS study in the United Kingdom; this prospective observational study found similar rates of high-grade and low-grade immune toxicity in its two cohorts of patients ≥ 70 and < 70 years of age.

At the meeting, Dr. Allais, who coauthored a 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs, reviewed recent developments and provided the following advice:
 

New diagnostic criteria: “Really exciting” news for more precise diagnosis and optimal therapy of cirAEs, Dr. Allais said, is a position paper published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer that offers consensus-based diagnostic criteria for the 10 most common types of dermatologic immune-related adverse events and an overall diagnostic framework. “Luckily, through the work of a Delphi consensus group, we can now have [more diagnostic specificity],” which is important for both clinical care and research, she said.

Most cirAEs have typically been reported nonspecifically as “rash,” but diagnosing a rash subtype is “critical in tailoring appropriate therapy that it is both effective and the least detrimental to the oncology treatment plan for patients with cancer,” the group’s coauthors wrote.

The 10 core diagnoses include psoriasis, eczematous dermatitis, vitiligo, Grover disease, eruptive atypical squamous proliferation, and bullous pemphigoid. Outside of the core diagnoses are other nonspecific presentations that require evaluation to arrive at a diagnosis, if possible, or to reveal data that can allow for targeted therapy and severity grading, the group explains in its paper.

“To prednisone or not to prednisone”: The development of cirAEs is associated with reduced mortality and improved cancer outcomes, making the use of immunosuppressants such as corticosteroids a therapeutic dilemma. “Patients who get these rashes usually do better with respect to their cancer, so the concern has been, if we affect how they respond to their immunotherapy, we may minimize that improvement in mortality,” said Dr. Allais, also assistant professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and clinical assistant professor of dermatology at George Washington University.

A widely discussed study published in 2015 reported on 254 patients with melanoma who developed an immune-related adverse event during treatment with ipilimumab — approximately one third of whom required systemic corticosteroids — and concluded that systemic corticosteroids did not affect overall survival or time to (cancer) treatment failure. This study from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, “was the first large study looking at this question,” she said, and the subsequent message for several years in conferences and the literature was that steroids do not affect the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors.

“But the study was not without limitations,” Dr. Allais said, “because the patients who got prednisone were mainly those with higher-grade toxicities,” while those not treated with corticosteroids had either no toxicities or low-grade toxicities. “If higher-grade toxicities were associated with better (antitumor) response, the steroids may have just [blunted] that benefit.”

The current totality of data available in the literature suggests that corticosteroids may indeed have an impact on the efficacy of ICI therapy. “Subsequent studies have come out in the community that have shown that we should probably think twice about giving prednisone to some patients, particularly within the first 50 days of ICI treatment, and that we should be mindful of the dose,” Dr. Allais said.

The takeaways from these studies — all published in the past few years — are to use prednisone early and liberally for life-threatening toxicity, to use it at the lowest dose and for the shortest course when there is not an appropriate alternative, to avoid it for diagnoses that are not treated with prednisone outside the ICI setting, and to “have a plan” for a steroid-sparing agent to use after prednisone, she said.

Dr. Allais recommends heightened consideration during the first 50 days of ICI treatment based on a multicenter retrospective study that found a significant association between use of high-dose glucocorticoids (≥ 60 mg prednisone equivalent once a day) within 8 weeks of anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monotherapy initiation and poorer progression-free and overall survival. The study covered a cohort of 947 patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy between 2009 and 2019, 54% of whom developed immune-related adverse events.

This study and other recent studies addressing the association between steroids and survival outcomes in patients with immune-related adverse events during ICI therapy are described in Dr. Allais’ 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs.

Approach to morbilliform eruptions: This rash is “super common” in patients on ICIs, occurring generally within 2-3 weeks of starting treatment. “It tends to be self-limited and can recur with future infusions,” Dr. Allais said.

Systemic steroids should be reserved for severe or refractory eruptions. “Usually, I treat the patients with topical steroids, and I manage their expectations (that the rash may recur with subsequent infusions), but I closely follow them up” within 2-3 weeks, she said. It’s important to rule out a severe cutaneous adverse drug eruption, of course, and to start high-dose systemic steroids immediately if necessary. “Antibiotics are a big culprit” and often can be discontinued.

Soak and smear: “I’m obsessed” with this technique of a 20-minute soak in plain water followed by application of steroid ointment, said Dr. Allais, referring to a small study published in 2005 that reported a complete response after 2 weeks in 60% of patients with psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other inflammatory skin conditions (none had cancer), who had failed prior systemic therapy. All patients had at least a 75% response.

The method offers a way to “avoid the systemic immunosuppression we’d get with prednisone,” she said. One just needs to make sure the older patient can get in and out of their tub safely.

ICI-induced bullous pemphigoid (BP): BP occurs more frequently in the ICI setting, compared with the general population, with a median time to development of 8.5 months after ICI initiation. It is associated in this setting with improved tumor response, but “many oncologists stop anticancer treatment because of this diagnosis,” she said.

In the supportive oncodermatology space, however, ICI-induced BP exemplifies the value of tailored treatment regimens, she said. A small multi-institutional retrospective cohort study published in 2023 identified 35 cases of ICI-BP among 5636 ICI-treated patients and found that 8 out of 11 patients who received biologic therapy (rituximab, omalizumab, or dupilumab) had a complete response to ICI-BP without flares following subsequent ICI cycles. And while statistical significance was not reached, the study showed that no cancer-related outcomes were worsened.

“If you see someone with ICI-induced BP and they have a lot of involvement, you could start them on steroids and get that steroid-sparing agent initiated for approval. ... And if IgE is elevated, you might reach for omalizumab,” said Dr. Allais, noting that her favored treatment overall is dupilumab.

Risk factors for the development of ICI-induced BP include age > 70, skin cancer, and having an initial response to ICI on first imaging, the latter of which “I find fascinating ... because imaging occurs within the first 12 weeks of treatment, but we don’t see BP popping up until 8.5 months into treatment,” she noted. “So maybe there’s a baseline risk factor that could predispose them.”

Caution with antibiotics: “I try to avoid antibiotics in the ICI setting,” Dr. Allais said, in deference to the “ever-important microbiome.” Studies have demonstrated that the microbiomes of responders to ICI treatment are different from those of nonresponders, she said.

And a “fascinating” study of patients with melanoma undergoing ICI therapy showed not only a higher abundance of Ruminococcaceae bacteria in responders vs nonresponders but a significant impact of dietary fiber. High dietary fiber was associated with significantly improved overall survival in the patients on ICI, with the most pronounced benefit in patients with good fiber intake and no probiotic use. “Even wilder, their T cells changed,” she said. “They had a high expression of genes related to T-cell activation ... so more tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.”

A retrospective study of 568 patients with stages III and IV melanoma treated with ICI showed that those exposed to antibiotics prior to ICI had significantly worse overall survival than those not exposed to antibiotics. “Think before you give them,” Dr. Allais said. “And try to tell your older patients to eat beans and greens.”

Dr. Allais reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON, DC — Cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs) in oncology patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) should be treated in as targeted a fashion as possible and with judicious usage and dosing of prednisone when deemed necessary, Blair Allais, MD, said during a session on supportive oncodermatology at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in the older patient hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.

“It’s important when you see these patients to be as specific as possible” based on morphology and histopathology, and to treat the rashes in a similar way as in the non-ICI setting,” said Dr. Allais, a dermato-oncologist at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, Virginia.

cirAEs are the most frequently reported and most visible adverse effects of checkpoint inhibition — a treatment that has emerged as a standard therapy for many malignancies since the first ICI was approved in 2011 for metastatic melanoma.

And contrary to what the phenomenon of immunosenescence might suggest, older patients are no less prone to cirAEs than younger patients. “You’d think you’d have fewer rashes and side effects as you age, but that’s not true,” said Dr. Allais, who completed a fellowship in cutaneous oncology after her dermatology residency.

A 2021 multicenter international cohort study of over 900 patients aged ≥ 80 years treated with single-agent ICIs for cancer did not find any significant differences in the development of immune-related adverse events among those younger than 85, those aged 85-89 years, and those 90 and older. Neither did the ELDERS study in the United Kingdom; this prospective observational study found similar rates of high-grade and low-grade immune toxicity in its two cohorts of patients ≥ 70 and < 70 years of age.

At the meeting, Dr. Allais, who coauthored a 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs, reviewed recent developments and provided the following advice:
 

New diagnostic criteria: “Really exciting” news for more precise diagnosis and optimal therapy of cirAEs, Dr. Allais said, is a position paper published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer that offers consensus-based diagnostic criteria for the 10 most common types of dermatologic immune-related adverse events and an overall diagnostic framework. “Luckily, through the work of a Delphi consensus group, we can now have [more diagnostic specificity],” which is important for both clinical care and research, she said.

Most cirAEs have typically been reported nonspecifically as “rash,” but diagnosing a rash subtype is “critical in tailoring appropriate therapy that it is both effective and the least detrimental to the oncology treatment plan for patients with cancer,” the group’s coauthors wrote.

The 10 core diagnoses include psoriasis, eczematous dermatitis, vitiligo, Grover disease, eruptive atypical squamous proliferation, and bullous pemphigoid. Outside of the core diagnoses are other nonspecific presentations that require evaluation to arrive at a diagnosis, if possible, or to reveal data that can allow for targeted therapy and severity grading, the group explains in its paper.

“To prednisone or not to prednisone”: The development of cirAEs is associated with reduced mortality and improved cancer outcomes, making the use of immunosuppressants such as corticosteroids a therapeutic dilemma. “Patients who get these rashes usually do better with respect to their cancer, so the concern has been, if we affect how they respond to their immunotherapy, we may minimize that improvement in mortality,” said Dr. Allais, also assistant professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and clinical assistant professor of dermatology at George Washington University.

A widely discussed study published in 2015 reported on 254 patients with melanoma who developed an immune-related adverse event during treatment with ipilimumab — approximately one third of whom required systemic corticosteroids — and concluded that systemic corticosteroids did not affect overall survival or time to (cancer) treatment failure. This study from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, “was the first large study looking at this question,” she said, and the subsequent message for several years in conferences and the literature was that steroids do not affect the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors.

“But the study was not without limitations,” Dr. Allais said, “because the patients who got prednisone were mainly those with higher-grade toxicities,” while those not treated with corticosteroids had either no toxicities or low-grade toxicities. “If higher-grade toxicities were associated with better (antitumor) response, the steroids may have just [blunted] that benefit.”

The current totality of data available in the literature suggests that corticosteroids may indeed have an impact on the efficacy of ICI therapy. “Subsequent studies have come out in the community that have shown that we should probably think twice about giving prednisone to some patients, particularly within the first 50 days of ICI treatment, and that we should be mindful of the dose,” Dr. Allais said.

The takeaways from these studies — all published in the past few years — are to use prednisone early and liberally for life-threatening toxicity, to use it at the lowest dose and for the shortest course when there is not an appropriate alternative, to avoid it for diagnoses that are not treated with prednisone outside the ICI setting, and to “have a plan” for a steroid-sparing agent to use after prednisone, she said.

Dr. Allais recommends heightened consideration during the first 50 days of ICI treatment based on a multicenter retrospective study that found a significant association between use of high-dose glucocorticoids (≥ 60 mg prednisone equivalent once a day) within 8 weeks of anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monotherapy initiation and poorer progression-free and overall survival. The study covered a cohort of 947 patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy between 2009 and 2019, 54% of whom developed immune-related adverse events.

This study and other recent studies addressing the association between steroids and survival outcomes in patients with immune-related adverse events during ICI therapy are described in Dr. Allais’ 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs.

Approach to morbilliform eruptions: This rash is “super common” in patients on ICIs, occurring generally within 2-3 weeks of starting treatment. “It tends to be self-limited and can recur with future infusions,” Dr. Allais said.

Systemic steroids should be reserved for severe or refractory eruptions. “Usually, I treat the patients with topical steroids, and I manage their expectations (that the rash may recur with subsequent infusions), but I closely follow them up” within 2-3 weeks, she said. It’s important to rule out a severe cutaneous adverse drug eruption, of course, and to start high-dose systemic steroids immediately if necessary. “Antibiotics are a big culprit” and often can be discontinued.

Soak and smear: “I’m obsessed” with this technique of a 20-minute soak in plain water followed by application of steroid ointment, said Dr. Allais, referring to a small study published in 2005 that reported a complete response after 2 weeks in 60% of patients with psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other inflammatory skin conditions (none had cancer), who had failed prior systemic therapy. All patients had at least a 75% response.

The method offers a way to “avoid the systemic immunosuppression we’d get with prednisone,” she said. One just needs to make sure the older patient can get in and out of their tub safely.

ICI-induced bullous pemphigoid (BP): BP occurs more frequently in the ICI setting, compared with the general population, with a median time to development of 8.5 months after ICI initiation. It is associated in this setting with improved tumor response, but “many oncologists stop anticancer treatment because of this diagnosis,” she said.

In the supportive oncodermatology space, however, ICI-induced BP exemplifies the value of tailored treatment regimens, she said. A small multi-institutional retrospective cohort study published in 2023 identified 35 cases of ICI-BP among 5636 ICI-treated patients and found that 8 out of 11 patients who received biologic therapy (rituximab, omalizumab, or dupilumab) had a complete response to ICI-BP without flares following subsequent ICI cycles. And while statistical significance was not reached, the study showed that no cancer-related outcomes were worsened.

“If you see someone with ICI-induced BP and they have a lot of involvement, you could start them on steroids and get that steroid-sparing agent initiated for approval. ... And if IgE is elevated, you might reach for omalizumab,” said Dr. Allais, noting that her favored treatment overall is dupilumab.

Risk factors for the development of ICI-induced BP include age > 70, skin cancer, and having an initial response to ICI on first imaging, the latter of which “I find fascinating ... because imaging occurs within the first 12 weeks of treatment, but we don’t see BP popping up until 8.5 months into treatment,” she noted. “So maybe there’s a baseline risk factor that could predispose them.”

Caution with antibiotics: “I try to avoid antibiotics in the ICI setting,” Dr. Allais said, in deference to the “ever-important microbiome.” Studies have demonstrated that the microbiomes of responders to ICI treatment are different from those of nonresponders, she said.

And a “fascinating” study of patients with melanoma undergoing ICI therapy showed not only a higher abundance of Ruminococcaceae bacteria in responders vs nonresponders but a significant impact of dietary fiber. High dietary fiber was associated with significantly improved overall survival in the patients on ICI, with the most pronounced benefit in patients with good fiber intake and no probiotic use. “Even wilder, their T cells changed,” she said. “They had a high expression of genes related to T-cell activation ... so more tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.”

A retrospective study of 568 patients with stages III and IV melanoma treated with ICI showed that those exposed to antibiotics prior to ICI had significantly worse overall survival than those not exposed to antibiotics. “Think before you give them,” Dr. Allais said. “And try to tell your older patients to eat beans and greens.”

Dr. Allais reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON, DC — Cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs) in oncology patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) should be treated in as targeted a fashion as possible and with judicious usage and dosing of prednisone when deemed necessary, Blair Allais, MD, said during a session on supportive oncodermatology at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in the older patient hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.

“It’s important when you see these patients to be as specific as possible” based on morphology and histopathology, and to treat the rashes in a similar way as in the non-ICI setting,” said Dr. Allais, a dermato-oncologist at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, Virginia.

cirAEs are the most frequently reported and most visible adverse effects of checkpoint inhibition — a treatment that has emerged as a standard therapy for many malignancies since the first ICI was approved in 2011 for metastatic melanoma.

And contrary to what the phenomenon of immunosenescence might suggest, older patients are no less prone to cirAEs than younger patients. “You’d think you’d have fewer rashes and side effects as you age, but that’s not true,” said Dr. Allais, who completed a fellowship in cutaneous oncology after her dermatology residency.

A 2021 multicenter international cohort study of over 900 patients aged ≥ 80 years treated with single-agent ICIs for cancer did not find any significant differences in the development of immune-related adverse events among those younger than 85, those aged 85-89 years, and those 90 and older. Neither did the ELDERS study in the United Kingdom; this prospective observational study found similar rates of high-grade and low-grade immune toxicity in its two cohorts of patients ≥ 70 and < 70 years of age.

At the meeting, Dr. Allais, who coauthored a 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs, reviewed recent developments and provided the following advice:
 

New diagnostic criteria: “Really exciting” news for more precise diagnosis and optimal therapy of cirAEs, Dr. Allais said, is a position paper published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer that offers consensus-based diagnostic criteria for the 10 most common types of dermatologic immune-related adverse events and an overall diagnostic framework. “Luckily, through the work of a Delphi consensus group, we can now have [more diagnostic specificity],” which is important for both clinical care and research, she said.

Most cirAEs have typically been reported nonspecifically as “rash,” but diagnosing a rash subtype is “critical in tailoring appropriate therapy that it is both effective and the least detrimental to the oncology treatment plan for patients with cancer,” the group’s coauthors wrote.

The 10 core diagnoses include psoriasis, eczematous dermatitis, vitiligo, Grover disease, eruptive atypical squamous proliferation, and bullous pemphigoid. Outside of the core diagnoses are other nonspecific presentations that require evaluation to arrive at a diagnosis, if possible, or to reveal data that can allow for targeted therapy and severity grading, the group explains in its paper.

“To prednisone or not to prednisone”: The development of cirAEs is associated with reduced mortality and improved cancer outcomes, making the use of immunosuppressants such as corticosteroids a therapeutic dilemma. “Patients who get these rashes usually do better with respect to their cancer, so the concern has been, if we affect how they respond to their immunotherapy, we may minimize that improvement in mortality,” said Dr. Allais, also assistant professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and clinical assistant professor of dermatology at George Washington University.

A widely discussed study published in 2015 reported on 254 patients with melanoma who developed an immune-related adverse event during treatment with ipilimumab — approximately one third of whom required systemic corticosteroids — and concluded that systemic corticosteroids did not affect overall survival or time to (cancer) treatment failure. This study from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, “was the first large study looking at this question,” she said, and the subsequent message for several years in conferences and the literature was that steroids do not affect the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors.

“But the study was not without limitations,” Dr. Allais said, “because the patients who got prednisone were mainly those with higher-grade toxicities,” while those not treated with corticosteroids had either no toxicities or low-grade toxicities. “If higher-grade toxicities were associated with better (antitumor) response, the steroids may have just [blunted] that benefit.”

The current totality of data available in the literature suggests that corticosteroids may indeed have an impact on the efficacy of ICI therapy. “Subsequent studies have come out in the community that have shown that we should probably think twice about giving prednisone to some patients, particularly within the first 50 days of ICI treatment, and that we should be mindful of the dose,” Dr. Allais said.

The takeaways from these studies — all published in the past few years — are to use prednisone early and liberally for life-threatening toxicity, to use it at the lowest dose and for the shortest course when there is not an appropriate alternative, to avoid it for diagnoses that are not treated with prednisone outside the ICI setting, and to “have a plan” for a steroid-sparing agent to use after prednisone, she said.

Dr. Allais recommends heightened consideration during the first 50 days of ICI treatment based on a multicenter retrospective study that found a significant association between use of high-dose glucocorticoids (≥ 60 mg prednisone equivalent once a day) within 8 weeks of anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monotherapy initiation and poorer progression-free and overall survival. The study covered a cohort of 947 patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy between 2009 and 2019, 54% of whom developed immune-related adverse events.

This study and other recent studies addressing the association between steroids and survival outcomes in patients with immune-related adverse events during ICI therapy are described in Dr. Allais’ 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs.

Approach to morbilliform eruptions: This rash is “super common” in patients on ICIs, occurring generally within 2-3 weeks of starting treatment. “It tends to be self-limited and can recur with future infusions,” Dr. Allais said.

Systemic steroids should be reserved for severe or refractory eruptions. “Usually, I treat the patients with topical steroids, and I manage their expectations (that the rash may recur with subsequent infusions), but I closely follow them up” within 2-3 weeks, she said. It’s important to rule out a severe cutaneous adverse drug eruption, of course, and to start high-dose systemic steroids immediately if necessary. “Antibiotics are a big culprit” and often can be discontinued.

Soak and smear: “I’m obsessed” with this technique of a 20-minute soak in plain water followed by application of steroid ointment, said Dr. Allais, referring to a small study published in 2005 that reported a complete response after 2 weeks in 60% of patients with psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other inflammatory skin conditions (none had cancer), who had failed prior systemic therapy. All patients had at least a 75% response.

The method offers a way to “avoid the systemic immunosuppression we’d get with prednisone,” she said. One just needs to make sure the older patient can get in and out of their tub safely.

ICI-induced bullous pemphigoid (BP): BP occurs more frequently in the ICI setting, compared with the general population, with a median time to development of 8.5 months after ICI initiation. It is associated in this setting with improved tumor response, but “many oncologists stop anticancer treatment because of this diagnosis,” she said.

In the supportive oncodermatology space, however, ICI-induced BP exemplifies the value of tailored treatment regimens, she said. A small multi-institutional retrospective cohort study published in 2023 identified 35 cases of ICI-BP among 5636 ICI-treated patients and found that 8 out of 11 patients who received biologic therapy (rituximab, omalizumab, or dupilumab) had a complete response to ICI-BP without flares following subsequent ICI cycles. And while statistical significance was not reached, the study showed that no cancer-related outcomes were worsened.

“If you see someone with ICI-induced BP and they have a lot of involvement, you could start them on steroids and get that steroid-sparing agent initiated for approval. ... And if IgE is elevated, you might reach for omalizumab,” said Dr. Allais, noting that her favored treatment overall is dupilumab.

Risk factors for the development of ICI-induced BP include age > 70, skin cancer, and having an initial response to ICI on first imaging, the latter of which “I find fascinating ... because imaging occurs within the first 12 weeks of treatment, but we don’t see BP popping up until 8.5 months into treatment,” she noted. “So maybe there’s a baseline risk factor that could predispose them.”

Caution with antibiotics: “I try to avoid antibiotics in the ICI setting,” Dr. Allais said, in deference to the “ever-important microbiome.” Studies have demonstrated that the microbiomes of responders to ICI treatment are different from those of nonresponders, she said.

And a “fascinating” study of patients with melanoma undergoing ICI therapy showed not only a higher abundance of Ruminococcaceae bacteria in responders vs nonresponders but a significant impact of dietary fiber. High dietary fiber was associated with significantly improved overall survival in the patients on ICI, with the most pronounced benefit in patients with good fiber intake and no probiotic use. “Even wilder, their T cells changed,” she said. “They had a high expression of genes related to T-cell activation ... so more tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.”

A retrospective study of 568 patients with stages III and IV melanoma treated with ICI showed that those exposed to antibiotics prior to ICI had significantly worse overall survival than those not exposed to antibiotics. “Think before you give them,” Dr. Allais said. “And try to tell your older patients to eat beans and greens.”

Dr. Allais reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, the 2016 winner of the Giants of Cancer Care award in melanoma and a valued contributor to Medscape Oncology, has died.

Dr. Weber, a melanoma and cancer immunotherapy specialist, served as deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University (NYU) Langone Medical Center in New York City. He also held positions as the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Professor of Oncology in the Department of Medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, director of the Experimental Therapeutics Program, and co-leader of the Clinical Melanoma Program Board at NYU Langone Health.

Dr. Weber was a principal investigator on many studies, including pivotal clinical drug trials in melanoma and trials focused on managing autoimmune side effects from immunotherapy. He published more than 150 articles in top peer-reviewed journals.

For many years, Dr. Weber hosted the popular “Weber on Oncology” series of video contributions for Medscape Oncology, sharing updates and insights on noteworthy research and breakthroughs in melanoma.

“The Melanoma Research Alliance mourns the passing of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber, a true pioneer in the field of cancer immunotherapy and an extraordinary leader in melanoma research. His contributions have forever changed the landscape of melanoma treatment, bringing groundbreaking advances from the lab into clinical practice and offering hope to countless patients,” the Melanoma Research Alliance posted on LinkedIn. 

Many X users also shared condolences and memories of Dr. Weber, praising his numerous contributions and accomplishments. 

“[Cancer Research Institute] mourns the loss of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber ... [a]s an accomplished physician scientist, Dr. Weber drove advances in melanoma research, and played an active role in educating patients about the lifesaving power of immunotherapy,” the Cancer Research Institute posted.

A colleague noted that “[h]e was involved in the early days of cytokine and cell therapy and most recently led studies of personalized vaccines for melanoma patients. ... He was a great friend and colleague to many of us in the melanoma and immunotherapy field and we will remember him as a pioneer, thought leader and compassionate physician.”

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

Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, the 2016 winner of the Giants of Cancer Care award in melanoma and a valued contributor to Medscape Oncology, has died.

Dr. Weber, a melanoma and cancer immunotherapy specialist, served as deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University (NYU) Langone Medical Center in New York City. He also held positions as the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Professor of Oncology in the Department of Medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, director of the Experimental Therapeutics Program, and co-leader of the Clinical Melanoma Program Board at NYU Langone Health.

Dr. Weber was a principal investigator on many studies, including pivotal clinical drug trials in melanoma and trials focused on managing autoimmune side effects from immunotherapy. He published more than 150 articles in top peer-reviewed journals.

For many years, Dr. Weber hosted the popular “Weber on Oncology” series of video contributions for Medscape Oncology, sharing updates and insights on noteworthy research and breakthroughs in melanoma.

“The Melanoma Research Alliance mourns the passing of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber, a true pioneer in the field of cancer immunotherapy and an extraordinary leader in melanoma research. His contributions have forever changed the landscape of melanoma treatment, bringing groundbreaking advances from the lab into clinical practice and offering hope to countless patients,” the Melanoma Research Alliance posted on LinkedIn. 

Many X users also shared condolences and memories of Dr. Weber, praising his numerous contributions and accomplishments. 

“[Cancer Research Institute] mourns the loss of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber ... [a]s an accomplished physician scientist, Dr. Weber drove advances in melanoma research, and played an active role in educating patients about the lifesaving power of immunotherapy,” the Cancer Research Institute posted.

A colleague noted that “[h]e was involved in the early days of cytokine and cell therapy and most recently led studies of personalized vaccines for melanoma patients. ... He was a great friend and colleague to many of us in the melanoma and immunotherapy field and we will remember him as a pioneer, thought leader and compassionate physician.”

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

Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, the 2016 winner of the Giants of Cancer Care award in melanoma and a valued contributor to Medscape Oncology, has died.

Dr. Weber, a melanoma and cancer immunotherapy specialist, served as deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University (NYU) Langone Medical Center in New York City. He also held positions as the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Professor of Oncology in the Department of Medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, director of the Experimental Therapeutics Program, and co-leader of the Clinical Melanoma Program Board at NYU Langone Health.

Dr. Weber was a principal investigator on many studies, including pivotal clinical drug trials in melanoma and trials focused on managing autoimmune side effects from immunotherapy. He published more than 150 articles in top peer-reviewed journals.

For many years, Dr. Weber hosted the popular “Weber on Oncology” series of video contributions for Medscape Oncology, sharing updates and insights on noteworthy research and breakthroughs in melanoma.

“The Melanoma Research Alliance mourns the passing of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber, a true pioneer in the field of cancer immunotherapy and an extraordinary leader in melanoma research. His contributions have forever changed the landscape of melanoma treatment, bringing groundbreaking advances from the lab into clinical practice and offering hope to countless patients,” the Melanoma Research Alliance posted on LinkedIn. 

Many X users also shared condolences and memories of Dr. Weber, praising his numerous contributions and accomplishments. 

“[Cancer Research Institute] mourns the loss of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber ... [a]s an accomplished physician scientist, Dr. Weber drove advances in melanoma research, and played an active role in educating patients about the lifesaving power of immunotherapy,” the Cancer Research Institute posted.

A colleague noted that “[h]e was involved in the early days of cytokine and cell therapy and most recently led studies of personalized vaccines for melanoma patients. ... He was a great friend and colleague to many of us in the melanoma and immunotherapy field and we will remember him as a pioneer, thought leader and compassionate physician.”

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