Lung Cancer

Research and development costs for cancer drugs are far lower than previous estimates, according to a new analysis, casting doubt on the common justifications by drug companies for the high prices of such medications.

The median cost to develop a cancer drug was $648 million, compared with the widely publicized figure of $2.7 billion, the study’s researchers said.

Lead investigator Vinay Prasad, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, and Sham Mailankody, MBBS, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, studied U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings for drug companies with no drugs on the market that received Food and Drug Administration approval for a cancer drug from Jan. 1, 2006, through Dec. 31, 2015. Researchers estimated cumulative research and development spending from initiation of drug development activity to date of approval. Earnings were identified from the time of approval to the present. Ten drugs and companies were included in the analysis.

Investigators found that the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years. Five companies (50%) developed drugs that received accelerated approval from the FDA, and five drugs (50%) received regular approval. Five of the 10 drugs (50%) act on a novel target (ibrutinib, brentuximab vedotin, ruxolitinib, cabozantinib, and eculizumab), whereas the other five drugs (50%) are next-in-class drugs with a mechanism of action similar to that of a previously approved drug.

Results showed the median cost of developing a single drug in 2017 U.S. dollars was $648 million (range, $157.3 million to $1.95 billion), and the mean development cost was $719.8 million (JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Sep 11 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3601).

Drugs that received accelerated approval cost less to develop than did those that received regular approval, although that finding was not statistically significant, according to the study. From the time of approval to December 2016 – or until the company sold or licensed the compound to another company – the total revenue of the 10 drugs was $67 billion. The median revenue for these companies was $1.66 billion (range, $204.1 million to $22.3 billion), and the average revenue was $6.7 billion. Nine of the 10 drugs had revenues greater than their research and development spending. Revenue from sales of four drugs (ponatinib, ibrutinib, enzalutamide, and eculizumab) was more than 10-fold higher than research and development spending.

The analysis offers a transparent estimate of research and development spending on cancer drugs, the study authors said, and has implications for the current debate on drug pricing. They noted that prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug range from $320 million to $2.7 billion, markedly lower than the study’s $648 million finding.

“In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than [research and development] spending – a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy,” the researchers explained. “Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.”

Regarding their work, the authors noted that the data set is small, the filings studied are subject to strict guidelines and regulation, the analysis pertains only to cancer drugs, and potential tax breaks applied to research and development costs for drug companies are not accounted for.

Dr. Mailankody reported serving as a principal investigator for clinical trials with research funding from Juno Therapeutics and Takeda Oncology. He also reported receiving personal fees for speaking at the Wedbush Pacgrow Healthcare Conference 2016. No other disclosures were reported.

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

Research and development costs for cancer drugs are far lower than previous estimates, according to a new analysis, casting doubt on the common justifications by drug companies for the high prices of such medications.

The median cost to develop a cancer drug was $648 million, compared with the widely publicized figure of $2.7 billion, the study’s researchers said.

Lead investigator Vinay Prasad, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, and Sham Mailankody, MBBS, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, studied U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings for drug companies with no drugs on the market that received Food and Drug Administration approval for a cancer drug from Jan. 1, 2006, through Dec. 31, 2015. Researchers estimated cumulative research and development spending from initiation of drug development activity to date of approval. Earnings were identified from the time of approval to the present. Ten drugs and companies were included in the analysis.

Investigators found that the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years. Five companies (50%) developed drugs that received accelerated approval from the FDA, and five drugs (50%) received regular approval. Five of the 10 drugs (50%) act on a novel target (ibrutinib, brentuximab vedotin, ruxolitinib, cabozantinib, and eculizumab), whereas the other five drugs (50%) are next-in-class drugs with a mechanism of action similar to that of a previously approved drug.

Results showed the median cost of developing a single drug in 2017 U.S. dollars was $648 million (range, $157.3 million to $1.95 billion), and the mean development cost was $719.8 million (JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Sep 11 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3601).

Drugs that received accelerated approval cost less to develop than did those that received regular approval, although that finding was not statistically significant, according to the study. From the time of approval to December 2016 – or until the company sold or licensed the compound to another company – the total revenue of the 10 drugs was $67 billion. The median revenue for these companies was $1.66 billion (range, $204.1 million to $22.3 billion), and the average revenue was $6.7 billion. Nine of the 10 drugs had revenues greater than their research and development spending. Revenue from sales of four drugs (ponatinib, ibrutinib, enzalutamide, and eculizumab) was more than 10-fold higher than research and development spending.

The analysis offers a transparent estimate of research and development spending on cancer drugs, the study authors said, and has implications for the current debate on drug pricing. They noted that prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug range from $320 million to $2.7 billion, markedly lower than the study’s $648 million finding.

“In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than [research and development] spending – a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy,” the researchers explained. “Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.”

Regarding their work, the authors noted that the data set is small, the filings studied are subject to strict guidelines and regulation, the analysis pertains only to cancer drugs, and potential tax breaks applied to research and development costs for drug companies are not accounted for.

Dr. Mailankody reported serving as a principal investigator for clinical trials with research funding from Juno Therapeutics and Takeda Oncology. He also reported receiving personal fees for speaking at the Wedbush Pacgrow Healthcare Conference 2016. No other disclosures were reported.

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

Research and development costs for cancer drugs are far lower than previous estimates, according to a new analysis, casting doubt on the common justifications by drug companies for the high prices of such medications.

The median cost to develop a cancer drug was $648 million, compared with the widely publicized figure of $2.7 billion, the study’s researchers said.

Lead investigator Vinay Prasad, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, and Sham Mailankody, MBBS, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, studied U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings for drug companies with no drugs on the market that received Food and Drug Administration approval for a cancer drug from Jan. 1, 2006, through Dec. 31, 2015. Researchers estimated cumulative research and development spending from initiation of drug development activity to date of approval. Earnings were identified from the time of approval to the present. Ten drugs and companies were included in the analysis.

Investigators found that the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years. Five companies (50%) developed drugs that received accelerated approval from the FDA, and five drugs (50%) received regular approval. Five of the 10 drugs (50%) act on a novel target (ibrutinib, brentuximab vedotin, ruxolitinib, cabozantinib, and eculizumab), whereas the other five drugs (50%) are next-in-class drugs with a mechanism of action similar to that of a previously approved drug.

Results showed the median cost of developing a single drug in 2017 U.S. dollars was $648 million (range, $157.3 million to $1.95 billion), and the mean development cost was $719.8 million (JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Sep 11 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3601).

Drugs that received accelerated approval cost less to develop than did those that received regular approval, although that finding was not statistically significant, according to the study. From the time of approval to December 2016 – or until the company sold or licensed the compound to another company – the total revenue of the 10 drugs was $67 billion. The median revenue for these companies was $1.66 billion (range, $204.1 million to $22.3 billion), and the average revenue was $6.7 billion. Nine of the 10 drugs had revenues greater than their research and development spending. Revenue from sales of four drugs (ponatinib, ibrutinib, enzalutamide, and eculizumab) was more than 10-fold higher than research and development spending.

The analysis offers a transparent estimate of research and development spending on cancer drugs, the study authors said, and has implications for the current debate on drug pricing. They noted that prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug range from $320 million to $2.7 billion, markedly lower than the study’s $648 million finding.

“In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than [research and development] spending – a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy,” the researchers explained. “Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.”

Regarding their work, the authors noted that the data set is small, the filings studied are subject to strict guidelines and regulation, the analysis pertains only to cancer drugs, and potential tax breaks applied to research and development costs for drug companies are not accounted for.

Dr. Mailankody reported serving as a principal investigator for clinical trials with research funding from Juno Therapeutics and Takeda Oncology. He also reported receiving personal fees for speaking at the Wedbush Pacgrow Healthcare Conference 2016. No other disclosures were reported.

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

MADRID – The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib (Tagrisso) is being hailed as a new standard of care for first-line therapy of advanced, treatment naïve non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).

Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression in these patients by 54% compared gefitinib (Iressa) or erlotinib (Tarceva).

Among 279 patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with osemirtinib, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months, compared with 10.2 months for 277 patients treated with the standard of care, which translates into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.46 (P less than .0001).

MADRID – The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib (Tagrisso) is being hailed as a new standard of care for first-line therapy of advanced, treatment naïve non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).

Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression in these patients by 54% compared gefitinib (Iressa) or erlotinib (Tarceva).

Among 279 patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with osemirtinib, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months, compared with 10.2 months for 277 patients treated with the standard of care, which translates into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.46 (P less than .0001).

MADRID – The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib (Tagrisso) is being hailed as a new standard of care for first-line therapy of advanced, treatment naïve non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).

Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression in these patients by 54% compared gefitinib (Iressa) or erlotinib (Tarceva).

Among 279 patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with osemirtinib, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months, compared with 10.2 months for 277 patients treated with the standard of care, which translates into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.46 (P less than .0001).

MADRID – For patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, consolidation therapy with the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab after chemoradiation was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than placebo, results of an interim analysis of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial showed.

Among 713 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy, the median PFS from randomization was 16.8 months for patients assigned to durvalumab compared with 5.6 months for patients assigned to placebo, reported Luis Paz-Ares, MD, from the University of Madrid, Spain.
“Overall, we think durvalumab is a promising option for patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemoradiation,” he said at a briefing at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress.

Approximately 25% to 30% of patients with NSCLC have locally advanced disease at the time of presentation. Patients with unresectable disease and good performance status are treated with chemoradiotheraoy consisting of a platinum doublet with concurrent radiation, but median PFS in these patients is generally short, on the order of 8 months. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate is 15%, he said.
Given the lack of major advances in the care of patients with stage 3 disease, investigators have been looking to newer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors to see whether they could improve outcomes.

PACIFIC is a phase 3 trial in which patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after a minimum of two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy were assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive intravenous durvalumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Patients were stratified by age, sex, and smoking history.
Dr. Paz-Ares presented PFS results from the interim analysis, planned when about 367 events had occurred. Data on the co-primary endpoint of OS were not mature at the time of the data cutoff.

Median PFS from randomization according to blinded independent central review for 476 patients treated with durvalumab was 16.8 months, compared with 5.6 months for 237 patients who received the placebo. This translated into a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.52 (P  less than .0001).
The respective PFS rates for durvalumab and placebo, were 59.9% vs. 35.3% at 12 months, and 44.2% vs. 27% at 18 months.
Among 443 patients on durvalumab and 213 on placebo who were evaluable for objective responses (OR), the respective OR rates were 28.4% vs. 16.
There were 6 complete responses (CR), 120 partial responses (PR), and 233 cases of stable disease in the durvalumab arm, compared with one CR, 33 PR, and 119 cases of stable disease in the placebo arm. In the durvalumab arm, 73 patients (16.5%) had progressive disease, compared with 59 patients (27.7%) in the placebo arm.

The median duration of response was not reached in the durvalumab arm, compared with 13.8 months in the placebo arm.
The PD-L1 inhibitor was also associated with a lower incidence of any new lesion among the intention-to-treat population (20.4% vs. 32.1%).
Grade 3 or 4 toxicities from any cause were slightly higher with durvalumab, at 29.9% vs. 26.1%. Events leading to discontinuation were also higher with the active drug, at 15.4% vs. 9.8% for placebo.
There were 21 deaths (4.4%) of patients treated with durvalumab, and 13 deaths (5.6%) of patients treated with placebo.
“In my opinion, this is a very well-designed study, and the results are very promising,” commented Enriqueta Felip, MD, who was not involved in the PACIFIC trial.

“We need to wait for the overall survival results, but in my opinion this is a very valuable trial in a group of patients [for whom] we need new strategies,” she said.
Dr. Felip was invited to the briefing as an independent commentator.
Results of the interim analysis of the PACIFIC trial were also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The PACIFIC trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Paz-Ares has received consultancy fees from the company. Dr. Felip disclosed financial relationships with multiple companies not including AstraZeneca.
 

MADRID – For patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, consolidation therapy with the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab after chemoradiation was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than placebo, results of an interim analysis of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial showed.

Among 713 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy, the median PFS from randomization was 16.8 months for patients assigned to durvalumab compared with 5.6 months for patients assigned to placebo, reported Luis Paz-Ares, MD, from the University of Madrid, Spain.
“Overall, we think durvalumab is a promising option for patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemoradiation,” he said at a briefing at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress.

Approximately 25% to 30% of patients with NSCLC have locally advanced disease at the time of presentation. Patients with unresectable disease and good performance status are treated with chemoradiotheraoy consisting of a platinum doublet with concurrent radiation, but median PFS in these patients is generally short, on the order of 8 months. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate is 15%, he said.
Given the lack of major advances in the care of patients with stage 3 disease, investigators have been looking to newer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors to see whether they could improve outcomes.

PACIFIC is a phase 3 trial in which patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after a minimum of two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy were assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive intravenous durvalumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Patients were stratified by age, sex, and smoking history.
Dr. Paz-Ares presented PFS results from the interim analysis, planned when about 367 events had occurred. Data on the co-primary endpoint of OS were not mature at the time of the data cutoff.

Median PFS from randomization according to blinded independent central review for 476 patients treated with durvalumab was 16.8 months, compared with 5.6 months for 237 patients who received the placebo. This translated into a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.52 (P  less than .0001).
The respective PFS rates for durvalumab and placebo, were 59.9% vs. 35.3% at 12 months, and 44.2% vs. 27% at 18 months.
Among 443 patients on durvalumab and 213 on placebo who were evaluable for objective responses (OR), the respective OR rates were 28.4% vs. 16.
There were 6 complete responses (CR), 120 partial responses (PR), and 233 cases of stable disease in the durvalumab arm, compared with one CR, 33 PR, and 119 cases of stable disease in the placebo arm. In the durvalumab arm, 73 patients (16.5%) had progressive disease, compared with 59 patients (27.7%) in the placebo arm.

The median duration of response was not reached in the durvalumab arm, compared with 13.8 months in the placebo arm.
The PD-L1 inhibitor was also associated with a lower incidence of any new lesion among the intention-to-treat population (20.4% vs. 32.1%).
Grade 3 or 4 toxicities from any cause were slightly higher with durvalumab, at 29.9% vs. 26.1%. Events leading to discontinuation were also higher with the active drug, at 15.4% vs. 9.8% for placebo.
There were 21 deaths (4.4%) of patients treated with durvalumab, and 13 deaths (5.6%) of patients treated with placebo.
“In my opinion, this is a very well-designed study, and the results are very promising,” commented Enriqueta Felip, MD, who was not involved in the PACIFIC trial.

“We need to wait for the overall survival results, but in my opinion this is a very valuable trial in a group of patients [for whom] we need new strategies,” she said.
Dr. Felip was invited to the briefing as an independent commentator.
Results of the interim analysis of the PACIFIC trial were also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The PACIFIC trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Paz-Ares has received consultancy fees from the company. Dr. Felip disclosed financial relationships with multiple companies not including AstraZeneca.
 

MADRID – For patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, consolidation therapy with the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab after chemoradiation was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than placebo, results of an interim analysis of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial showed.

Among 713 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy, the median PFS from randomization was 16.8 months for patients assigned to durvalumab compared with 5.6 months for patients assigned to placebo, reported Luis Paz-Ares, MD, from the University of Madrid, Spain.
“Overall, we think durvalumab is a promising option for patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemoradiation,” he said at a briefing at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress.

Approximately 25% to 30% of patients with NSCLC have locally advanced disease at the time of presentation. Patients with unresectable disease and good performance status are treated with chemoradiotheraoy consisting of a platinum doublet with concurrent radiation, but median PFS in these patients is generally short, on the order of 8 months. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate is 15%, he said.
Given the lack of major advances in the care of patients with stage 3 disease, investigators have been looking to newer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors to see whether they could improve outcomes.

PACIFIC is a phase 3 trial in which patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after a minimum of two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy were assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive intravenous durvalumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Patients were stratified by age, sex, and smoking history.
Dr. Paz-Ares presented PFS results from the interim analysis, planned when about 367 events had occurred. Data on the co-primary endpoint of OS were not mature at the time of the data cutoff.

Median PFS from randomization according to blinded independent central review for 476 patients treated with durvalumab was 16.8 months, compared with 5.6 months for 237 patients who received the placebo. This translated into a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.52 (P  less than .0001).
The respective PFS rates for durvalumab and placebo, were 59.9% vs. 35.3% at 12 months, and 44.2% vs. 27% at 18 months.
Among 443 patients on durvalumab and 213 on placebo who were evaluable for objective responses (OR), the respective OR rates were 28.4% vs. 16.
There were 6 complete responses (CR), 120 partial responses (PR), and 233 cases of stable disease in the durvalumab arm, compared with one CR, 33 PR, and 119 cases of stable disease in the placebo arm. In the durvalumab arm, 73 patients (16.5%) had progressive disease, compared with 59 patients (27.7%) in the placebo arm.

The median duration of response was not reached in the durvalumab arm, compared with 13.8 months in the placebo arm.
The PD-L1 inhibitor was also associated with a lower incidence of any new lesion among the intention-to-treat population (20.4% vs. 32.1%).
Grade 3 or 4 toxicities from any cause were slightly higher with durvalumab, at 29.9% vs. 26.1%. Events leading to discontinuation were also higher with the active drug, at 15.4% vs. 9.8% for placebo.
There were 21 deaths (4.4%) of patients treated with durvalumab, and 13 deaths (5.6%) of patients treated with placebo.
“In my opinion, this is a very well-designed study, and the results are very promising,” commented Enriqueta Felip, MD, who was not involved in the PACIFIC trial.

“We need to wait for the overall survival results, but in my opinion this is a very valuable trial in a group of patients [for whom] we need new strategies,” she said.
Dr. Felip was invited to the briefing as an independent commentator.
Results of the interim analysis of the PACIFIC trial were also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The PACIFIC trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Paz-Ares has received consultancy fees from the company. Dr. Felip disclosed financial relationships with multiple companies not including AstraZeneca.
 

Rates of opioid prescribing were about 1.2 times higher overall among cancer survivors up to 10 years after diagnosis, compared with matched controls, with more than threefold higher rates of opioid prescriptions for survivors of some cancers, according to a Canadian population-based cohort study.

Searching for the cause of these elevated rates reveals the complexity of the survivorship experience, and may also point the way to areas where there’s work to be done, according to physicians whose practices touch the lives of cancer survivors.

In a retrospective matched cohort study of participants in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and the Ontario Drug Benefits Program, Rinku Sutradhar, PhD, of the University of Toronto, and her colleagues, identified patients aged 18-64 who had a cancer diagnosis at least 5 years previously. Patients were included only if they had not had a cancer recurrence or another malignancy. When compared 1:1 to age- and sex-matched controls, the 8,601 cancer survivors had a relative rate of opioid prescribing of 1.220 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.209-1.232), the investigators reported (Cancer 2017 Aug 17. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30839).

Opioid prescribing rates varied according to the type of cancer the survivor had had, with a relative rate of 3.119 for noncolorectal gastrointestinal cancer survivors and a rate of 2.066 for lung cancer survivors. Individuals with nonprostate genitourinary cancers had a prescribing rate of 1.619. All of these differences were statistically significant.

Elevated prescribing rates were not seen in patients with brain, breast, colorectal, head and neck, or prostate cancers. The relative rate of prescribing for hematologic cancers was 1.383, a difference that approached, but did not quite reach, statistical significance (P = .0512).

When multivariable analysis was used to stratify individuals by length of time since cancer diagnosis, a significantly elevated relative rate of opioid prescribing persisted; for those 5-10 years from diagnosis, the relative rate was 1.190 (95% CI, 1.040-1.362, P = .011), while for those diagnosed at least 10 years ago, the relative rate was 1.244 (95% CI, 1.090-1.420; P = .00118).

Multivariable analysis was also used to control for income, rural residence, and comorbidities. However, the study could capture only opioids that were obtained with a prescription, and could not track whether medications were taken by the person for whom they were prescribed, Dr. Sutradhar and her colleagues said.

Cancer survivors may have a higher prevalence of chronic pain than the general population for reasons related both to their initial diagnosis and the sequelae of treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, the investigators noted, adding, “it is also possible that a higher rate of opioid prescribing among survivors is due to a dependency that originated from opioid use earlier in the disease trajectory.”

Because of the potential for opioid use disorder and the many adverse effects that can be associated with long-term opioid use, they said, “primary care providers who treat cancer survivors should be encouraged to critically examine reasons for lingering opioid use among their patients.”

The oncologist’s perspective

Walter M. Stadler, MD, an oncologist who treats genitourinary and hematologic cancers, also wonders whether it’s pain or dependency that’s driving the increased prescribing rates in cancer survivors.

What can primary care offer?

Larissa Nekhlyudov, MD, is an internal medicine physician whose clinical practice straddles two domains. She sees patients, including some cancer survivors, as a primary care provider; she also provides care in a survivorship clinic to adult survivors of childhood cancers. There, she is able to focus more on survivorship care, developing a care plan and communicating with primary care providers about care elements her patients need.

Mental health implications of survivorship

Viewing the issue through the lens of mental health offers a slightly different perspective. Thomas B. Strouse, MD, is a psychiatrist who holds the Maddie Katz Chair in palliative care research and education at the University of California, Los Angeles. He said he laments the current “opioidophobia” that calls into question any long-term opioid prescribing.

Acknowledging that there’s certainly a serious nationwide problem with both prescription and nonprescription opioid abuse, Dr. Strouse said he still finds it unfortunate that the current situation has “reactivated for many people a certain set of reflexes that say that any chronic opioid use is always a bad thing. That’s simply not true,” he said.

“Whether opioids are the right treatment for all of those patients, of course, is an entirely fair question. But it’s unfortunate, or wrong, for everybody to approach this article and to say that we know that for all of these patients, chronic opioid therapy is not appropriate,” he added.

Chronic pain that lingers after cancer treatments affects “a very significant minority of cancer survivors,” he said. It’s also true that the meaning of pain can be different for cancer survivors, said Dr. Strouse. For a cancer survivor, “any new pain is cancer pain until proven otherwise,” he said.

Further, pivoting from the attentive, multidisciplinary, wraparound care often received during cancer treatment to the relatively unsupported survivorship experience can be a rough transition for some. Despite the grim reason for the connection, “frequently, it’s the best experience of patients’ lives from a human relations perspective. … We don’t think enough about the loss that the end of cancer treatment may mean for people who may have otherwise unsatisfactory relationships in their lives,” he said.

Dr. Strouse, who works extensively with cancer survivors, said that the elevated rate of opioid prescribing seen in this study “opens the door to a bigger discussion about the challenges in the relatively empty domain of survivorship.” After discharge from cancer care, patients are all too often left without a navigator to help them through the years when, though their treatment is complete, anxiety, financial and social strain, and pain may linger.

The study, he said, should be a call to physicians for “a more meaningful commitment to understanding the burdens of survivorship, and actually offering meaningful clinical services to those people in an integrated and appropriate way.” This might include determining a patient’s absolute minimum opioid requirement, with a goal of getting the patient off opioids, but also making sure the patient has knowledge of and access to alternative pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for pain. “That seems like a reasonable approach,” said Dr. Strouse.

None of the study’s authors or the physicians interviewed for commentary had relevant conflicts of interest.

koakes@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @karioakes

Rates of opioid prescribing were about 1.2 times higher overall among cancer survivors up to 10 years after diagnosis, compared with matched controls, with more than threefold higher rates of opioid prescriptions for survivors of some cancers, according to a Canadian population-based cohort study.

Searching for the cause of these elevated rates reveals the complexity of the survivorship experience, and may also point the way to areas where there’s work to be done, according to physicians whose practices touch the lives of cancer survivors.

In a retrospective matched cohort study of participants in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and the Ontario Drug Benefits Program, Rinku Sutradhar, PhD, of the University of Toronto, and her colleagues, identified patients aged 18-64 who had a cancer diagnosis at least 5 years previously. Patients were included only if they had not had a cancer recurrence or another malignancy. When compared 1:1 to age- and sex-matched controls, the 8,601 cancer survivors had a relative rate of opioid prescribing of 1.220 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.209-1.232), the investigators reported (Cancer 2017 Aug 17. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30839).

Opioid prescribing rates varied according to the type of cancer the survivor had had, with a relative rate of 3.119 for noncolorectal gastrointestinal cancer survivors and a rate of 2.066 for lung cancer survivors. Individuals with nonprostate genitourinary cancers had a prescribing rate of 1.619. All of these differences were statistically significant.

Elevated prescribing rates were not seen in patients with brain, breast, colorectal, head and neck, or prostate cancers. The relative rate of prescribing for hematologic cancers was 1.383, a difference that approached, but did not quite reach, statistical significance (P = .0512).

When multivariable analysis was used to stratify individuals by length of time since cancer diagnosis, a significantly elevated relative rate of opioid prescribing persisted; for those 5-10 years from diagnosis, the relative rate was 1.190 (95% CI, 1.040-1.362, P = .011), while for those diagnosed at least 10 years ago, the relative rate was 1.244 (95% CI, 1.090-1.420; P = .00118).

Multivariable analysis was also used to control for income, rural residence, and comorbidities. However, the study could capture only opioids that were obtained with a prescription, and could not track whether medications were taken by the person for whom they were prescribed, Dr. Sutradhar and her colleagues said.

Cancer survivors may have a higher prevalence of chronic pain than the general population for reasons related both to their initial diagnosis and the sequelae of treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, the investigators noted, adding, “it is also possible that a higher rate of opioid prescribing among survivors is due to a dependency that originated from opioid use earlier in the disease trajectory.”

Because of the potential for opioid use disorder and the many adverse effects that can be associated with long-term opioid use, they said, “primary care providers who treat cancer survivors should be encouraged to critically examine reasons for lingering opioid use among their patients.”

The oncologist’s perspective

Walter M. Stadler, MD, an oncologist who treats genitourinary and hematologic cancers, also wonders whether it’s pain or dependency that’s driving the increased prescribing rates in cancer survivors.

What can primary care offer?

Larissa Nekhlyudov, MD, is an internal medicine physician whose clinical practice straddles two domains. She sees patients, including some cancer survivors, as a primary care provider; she also provides care in a survivorship clinic to adult survivors of childhood cancers. There, she is able to focus more on survivorship care, developing a care plan and communicating with primary care providers about care elements her patients need.

Mental health implications of survivorship

Viewing the issue through the lens of mental health offers a slightly different perspective. Thomas B. Strouse, MD, is a psychiatrist who holds the Maddie Katz Chair in palliative care research and education at the University of California, Los Angeles. He said he laments the current “opioidophobia” that calls into question any long-term opioid prescribing.

Acknowledging that there’s certainly a serious nationwide problem with both prescription and nonprescription opioid abuse, Dr. Strouse said he still finds it unfortunate that the current situation has “reactivated for many people a certain set of reflexes that say that any chronic opioid use is always a bad thing. That’s simply not true,” he said.

“Whether opioids are the right treatment for all of those patients, of course, is an entirely fair question. But it’s unfortunate, or wrong, for everybody to approach this article and to say that we know that for all of these patients, chronic opioid therapy is not appropriate,” he added.

Chronic pain that lingers after cancer treatments affects “a very significant minority of cancer survivors,” he said. It’s also true that the meaning of pain can be different for cancer survivors, said Dr. Strouse. For a cancer survivor, “any new pain is cancer pain until proven otherwise,” he said.

Further, pivoting from the attentive, multidisciplinary, wraparound care often received during cancer treatment to the relatively unsupported survivorship experience can be a rough transition for some. Despite the grim reason for the connection, “frequently, it’s the best experience of patients’ lives from a human relations perspective. … We don’t think enough about the loss that the end of cancer treatment may mean for people who may have otherwise unsatisfactory relationships in their lives,” he said.

Dr. Strouse, who works extensively with cancer survivors, said that the elevated rate of opioid prescribing seen in this study “opens the door to a bigger discussion about the challenges in the relatively empty domain of survivorship.” After discharge from cancer care, patients are all too often left without a navigator to help them through the years when, though their treatment is complete, anxiety, financial and social strain, and pain may linger.

The study, he said, should be a call to physicians for “a more meaningful commitment to understanding the burdens of survivorship, and actually offering meaningful clinical services to those people in an integrated and appropriate way.” This might include determining a patient’s absolute minimum opioid requirement, with a goal of getting the patient off opioids, but also making sure the patient has knowledge of and access to alternative pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for pain. “That seems like a reasonable approach,” said Dr. Strouse.

None of the study’s authors or the physicians interviewed for commentary had relevant conflicts of interest.

koakes@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @karioakes

Rates of opioid prescribing were about 1.2 times higher overall among cancer survivors up to 10 years after diagnosis, compared with matched controls, with more than threefold higher rates of opioid prescriptions for survivors of some cancers, according to a Canadian population-based cohort study.

Searching for the cause of these elevated rates reveals the complexity of the survivorship experience, and may also point the way to areas where there’s work to be done, according to physicians whose practices touch the lives of cancer survivors.

In a retrospective matched cohort study of participants in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and the Ontario Drug Benefits Program, Rinku Sutradhar, PhD, of the University of Toronto, and her colleagues, identified patients aged 18-64 who had a cancer diagnosis at least 5 years previously. Patients were included only if they had not had a cancer recurrence or another malignancy. When compared 1:1 to age- and sex-matched controls, the 8,601 cancer survivors had a relative rate of opioid prescribing of 1.220 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.209-1.232), the investigators reported (Cancer 2017 Aug 17. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30839).

Opioid prescribing rates varied according to the type of cancer the survivor had had, with a relative rate of 3.119 for noncolorectal gastrointestinal cancer survivors and a rate of 2.066 for lung cancer survivors. Individuals with nonprostate genitourinary cancers had a prescribing rate of 1.619. All of these differences were statistically significant.

Elevated prescribing rates were not seen in patients with brain, breast, colorectal, head and neck, or prostate cancers. The relative rate of prescribing for hematologic cancers was 1.383, a difference that approached, but did not quite reach, statistical significance (P = .0512).

When multivariable analysis was used to stratify individuals by length of time since cancer diagnosis, a significantly elevated relative rate of opioid prescribing persisted; for those 5-10 years from diagnosis, the relative rate was 1.190 (95% CI, 1.040-1.362, P = .011), while for those diagnosed at least 10 years ago, the relative rate was 1.244 (95% CI, 1.090-1.420; P = .00118).

Multivariable analysis was also used to control for income, rural residence, and comorbidities. However, the study could capture only opioids that were obtained with a prescription, and could not track whether medications were taken by the person for whom they were prescribed, Dr. Sutradhar and her colleagues said.

Cancer survivors may have a higher prevalence of chronic pain than the general population for reasons related both to their initial diagnosis and the sequelae of treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, the investigators noted, adding, “it is also possible that a higher rate of opioid prescribing among survivors is due to a dependency that originated from opioid use earlier in the disease trajectory.”

Because of the potential for opioid use disorder and the many adverse effects that can be associated with long-term opioid use, they said, “primary care providers who treat cancer survivors should be encouraged to critically examine reasons for lingering opioid use among their patients.”

The oncologist’s perspective

Walter M. Stadler, MD, an oncologist who treats genitourinary and hematologic cancers, also wonders whether it’s pain or dependency that’s driving the increased prescribing rates in cancer survivors.

What can primary care offer?

Larissa Nekhlyudov, MD, is an internal medicine physician whose clinical practice straddles two domains. She sees patients, including some cancer survivors, as a primary care provider; she also provides care in a survivorship clinic to adult survivors of childhood cancers. There, she is able to focus more on survivorship care, developing a care plan and communicating with primary care providers about care elements her patients need.

Mental health implications of survivorship

Viewing the issue through the lens of mental health offers a slightly different perspective. Thomas B. Strouse, MD, is a psychiatrist who holds the Maddie Katz Chair in palliative care research and education at the University of California, Los Angeles. He said he laments the current “opioidophobia” that calls into question any long-term opioid prescribing.

Acknowledging that there’s certainly a serious nationwide problem with both prescription and nonprescription opioid abuse, Dr. Strouse said he still finds it unfortunate that the current situation has “reactivated for many people a certain set of reflexes that say that any chronic opioid use is always a bad thing. That’s simply not true,” he said.

“Whether opioids are the right treatment for all of those patients, of course, is an entirely fair question. But it’s unfortunate, or wrong, for everybody to approach this article and to say that we know that for all of these patients, chronic opioid therapy is not appropriate,” he added.

Chronic pain that lingers after cancer treatments affects “a very significant minority of cancer survivors,” he said. It’s also true that the meaning of pain can be different for cancer survivors, said Dr. Strouse. For a cancer survivor, “any new pain is cancer pain until proven otherwise,” he said.

Further, pivoting from the attentive, multidisciplinary, wraparound care often received during cancer treatment to the relatively unsupported survivorship experience can be a rough transition for some. Despite the grim reason for the connection, “frequently, it’s the best experience of patients’ lives from a human relations perspective. … We don’t think enough about the loss that the end of cancer treatment may mean for people who may have otherwise unsatisfactory relationships in their lives,” he said.

Dr. Strouse, who works extensively with cancer survivors, said that the elevated rate of opioid prescribing seen in this study “opens the door to a bigger discussion about the challenges in the relatively empty domain of survivorship.” After discharge from cancer care, patients are all too often left without a navigator to help them through the years when, though their treatment is complete, anxiety, financial and social strain, and pain may linger.

The study, he said, should be a call to physicians for “a more meaningful commitment to understanding the burdens of survivorship, and actually offering meaningful clinical services to those people in an integrated and appropriate way.” This might include determining a patient’s absolute minimum opioid requirement, with a goal of getting the patient off opioids, but also making sure the patient has knowledge of and access to alternative pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for pain. “That seems like a reasonable approach,” said Dr. Strouse.

None of the study’s authors or the physicians interviewed for commentary had relevant conflicts of interest.

koakes@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @karioakes

Three percent of patients developed immune-related adverse neurologic events within 12 months of receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab, according to the results of a single-center retrospective study.

These syndromes included myopathy, axonal thoracolumbar polyradiculopathy, severe demyelinating length-dependent peripheral neuropathy with axonal loss, a facial diplegic variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome, asymmetric vasculitic neuropathy, cerebellar ataxia with dysarthria, autoimmune retinopathy, bilateral internuclear ophthalmoplegia, and headache, reported Justin C. Kao, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his coinvestigators. Most patients improved after stopping treatment and starting corticosteroids, but one patient developed necrotizing myopathy and died after withdrawal of ventilator support.

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, which inhibit the programmed death–1 (PD-1) receptor, are approved for treating metastatic melanoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, head and neck cancers, and urothelial carcinoma. In response to a surge in reports of neurologic events associated with anti–PD-1 therapy, the investigators searched the Mayo Clinic pharmacy database and identified 347 patients treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab between 2014 and 2016. Ten patients (2.9%) developed neurologic complications within 12 months of anti–PD-1 exposure, including eight men and two women. The median age was 71 years. None of their neurologic symptoms could be directly attributed to other treatments or to metastatic disease. Most had mild to moderate disability, with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 2, and symptom severity peaked between 1 day and more than 3 months after starting anti–PD-1 treatment (JAMA Neurol. 2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.1912).

Stopping anti–PD-1 treatment and starting high-dose corticosteroids led to substantial neurologic improvements (mRS scores, 0-3), except in the case of fatal necrotizing myopathy, the researchers said. That patient, who was receiving pembrolizumab for stage 4 melanoma, developed extraocular, bulbar, and proximal limb girdle weakness that worsened over a period of 3 weeks and did not respond to prednisone (80 mg daily) or to three sessions of plasmapheresis.

If a patient on anti–PD-1 therapy develops neurologic symptoms, clinicians should promptly stop treatment and pursue a full work-up, including electrodiagnostic studies and consideration of muscle or nerve biopsy to clarify underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, the researchers said. “If the clinical examination demonstrates severe clinical deficits at onset or worsens despite medication discontinuation, additional immune suppressant treatment should be considered,” they said. They recommended prednisone (1 mg/kg) with a taper over a 1-month period. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy or plasma exchange may be warranted if patients continue to worsen, they said.

The investigators did not report external funding sources. Mr. Kao had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, the American Academy of Neurology, the Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Alnylam, and Oxford University Press. The remaining coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

Three percent of patients developed immune-related adverse neurologic events within 12 months of receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab, according to the results of a single-center retrospective study.

These syndromes included myopathy, axonal thoracolumbar polyradiculopathy, severe demyelinating length-dependent peripheral neuropathy with axonal loss, a facial diplegic variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome, asymmetric vasculitic neuropathy, cerebellar ataxia with dysarthria, autoimmune retinopathy, bilateral internuclear ophthalmoplegia, and headache, reported Justin C. Kao, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his coinvestigators. Most patients improved after stopping treatment and starting corticosteroids, but one patient developed necrotizing myopathy and died after withdrawal of ventilator support.

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, which inhibit the programmed death–1 (PD-1) receptor, are approved for treating metastatic melanoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, head and neck cancers, and urothelial carcinoma. In response to a surge in reports of neurologic events associated with anti–PD-1 therapy, the investigators searched the Mayo Clinic pharmacy database and identified 347 patients treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab between 2014 and 2016. Ten patients (2.9%) developed neurologic complications within 12 months of anti–PD-1 exposure, including eight men and two women. The median age was 71 years. None of their neurologic symptoms could be directly attributed to other treatments or to metastatic disease. Most had mild to moderate disability, with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 2, and symptom severity peaked between 1 day and more than 3 months after starting anti–PD-1 treatment (JAMA Neurol. 2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.1912).

Stopping anti–PD-1 treatment and starting high-dose corticosteroids led to substantial neurologic improvements (mRS scores, 0-3), except in the case of fatal necrotizing myopathy, the researchers said. That patient, who was receiving pembrolizumab for stage 4 melanoma, developed extraocular, bulbar, and proximal limb girdle weakness that worsened over a period of 3 weeks and did not respond to prednisone (80 mg daily) or to three sessions of plasmapheresis.

If a patient on anti–PD-1 therapy develops neurologic symptoms, clinicians should promptly stop treatment and pursue a full work-up, including electrodiagnostic studies and consideration of muscle or nerve biopsy to clarify underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, the researchers said. “If the clinical examination demonstrates severe clinical deficits at onset or worsens despite medication discontinuation, additional immune suppressant treatment should be considered,” they said. They recommended prednisone (1 mg/kg) with a taper over a 1-month period. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy or plasma exchange may be warranted if patients continue to worsen, they said.

The investigators did not report external funding sources. Mr. Kao had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, the American Academy of Neurology, the Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Alnylam, and Oxford University Press. The remaining coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

Three percent of patients developed immune-related adverse neurologic events within 12 months of receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab, according to the results of a single-center retrospective study.

These syndromes included myopathy, axonal thoracolumbar polyradiculopathy, severe demyelinating length-dependent peripheral neuropathy with axonal loss, a facial diplegic variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome, asymmetric vasculitic neuropathy, cerebellar ataxia with dysarthria, autoimmune retinopathy, bilateral internuclear ophthalmoplegia, and headache, reported Justin C. Kao, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his coinvestigators. Most patients improved after stopping treatment and starting corticosteroids, but one patient developed necrotizing myopathy and died after withdrawal of ventilator support.

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, which inhibit the programmed death–1 (PD-1) receptor, are approved for treating metastatic melanoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, head and neck cancers, and urothelial carcinoma. In response to a surge in reports of neurologic events associated with anti–PD-1 therapy, the investigators searched the Mayo Clinic pharmacy database and identified 347 patients treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab between 2014 and 2016. Ten patients (2.9%) developed neurologic complications within 12 months of anti–PD-1 exposure, including eight men and two women. The median age was 71 years. None of their neurologic symptoms could be directly attributed to other treatments or to metastatic disease. Most had mild to moderate disability, with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 2, and symptom severity peaked between 1 day and more than 3 months after starting anti–PD-1 treatment (JAMA Neurol. 2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.1912).

Stopping anti–PD-1 treatment and starting high-dose corticosteroids led to substantial neurologic improvements (mRS scores, 0-3), except in the case of fatal necrotizing myopathy, the researchers said. That patient, who was receiving pembrolizumab for stage 4 melanoma, developed extraocular, bulbar, and proximal limb girdle weakness that worsened over a period of 3 weeks and did not respond to prednisone (80 mg daily) or to three sessions of plasmapheresis.

If a patient on anti–PD-1 therapy develops neurologic symptoms, clinicians should promptly stop treatment and pursue a full work-up, including electrodiagnostic studies and consideration of muscle or nerve biopsy to clarify underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, the researchers said. “If the clinical examination demonstrates severe clinical deficits at onset or worsens despite medication discontinuation, additional immune suppressant treatment should be considered,” they said. They recommended prednisone (1 mg/kg) with a taper over a 1-month period. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy or plasma exchange may be warranted if patients continue to worsen, they said.

The investigators did not report external funding sources. Mr. Kao had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, the American Academy of Neurology, the Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Alnylam, and Oxford University Press. The remaining coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed durable antitumor activity in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer, and its safety profile resembled that in other tumor types, based on the results of the phase 1b KEYNOTE-028 study of 24 patients.

One patient died of treatment-related mesenteric ischemia, reported Patrick A. Ott, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and his associates. Nonetheless, with an objective response rate of 33% and a median duration of response of 19 months, the checkpoint inhibitor “demonstrated a favorable safety profile and promising durable clinical activity,” they concluded.

Study participants received pembrolizumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for 24 months or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. After a median follow-up of 9.8 months (range, 0.5-24 months), one patient (4%) had a complete response, and seven (29%) had partial responses. The median onset of response was 2 months, and responses lasted from 3.6 to 20 months, Dr. Ott and his associates reported (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 16. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.5069). Two-thirds of patients developed treatment-related adverse events, most often arthralgia, asthenia, rash, diarrhea, and fatigue. Two patients developed grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events, including a 65-year-old man with small cell lung cancer and liver metastasis who developed grade 3 bilirubin elevation, and a 58-year-old woman with a history of sleeve gastrectomy who developed grade 3 asthenia, grade 5 colitis, and intestinal ischemia.

The patient who died had received 10 cycles of pembrolizumab, was hospitalized with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, and was discharged home with a diagnosis of food intolerance, the researchers reported. She received an 11th cycle of pembrolizumab and was readmitted with abdominal pain. A rectal biopsy showed chronic colitis. She received systemic corticosteroids and was discharged, was admitted to a different hospital several weeks later with diffuse abdominal pain and septic shock, and subsequently died. “Mesenteric ischemia resulted in death,” the researchers wrote. “The cause of the colitis and intestinal ischemia was reported as probably related to pembrolizumab.”

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a programmed death receptor–1 blocking antibody approved for treating non–small cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell cancer, classical Hodgkin lymphoma, urothelial carcinoma, and microsatellite instability–high cancer or mismatch repair deficient solid tumors. Treatment with the checkpoint inhibitor led to grade 5 treatment-related adverse events in other trials. Most recently, in July 2017, the Food and Drug Administration placed clinical holds on phase 1 and phase 3 studies of pembrolizumab for treating multiple myeloma after more patients died in the pembrolizumab arms than did in the comparison arms. Pembrolizumab also recently came up short in a phase 3 trial of patients with head and neck cancer, although it has kept its FDA label for this indication. Multiple trials of pembrolizumab for small cell lung cancer are recruiting or ongoing.

Merck funded the study. Dr. Ott disclosed research funding from Merck and several other pharmaceutical companies, and advisory or consulting relationships with several companies, excluding Merck.

Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed durable antitumor activity in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer, and its safety profile resembled that in other tumor types, based on the results of the phase 1b KEYNOTE-028 study of 24 patients.

One patient died of treatment-related mesenteric ischemia, reported Patrick A. Ott, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and his associates. Nonetheless, with an objective response rate of 33% and a median duration of response of 19 months, the checkpoint inhibitor “demonstrated a favorable safety profile and promising durable clinical activity,” they concluded.

Study participants received pembrolizumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for 24 months or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. After a median follow-up of 9.8 months (range, 0.5-24 months), one patient (4%) had a complete response, and seven (29%) had partial responses. The median onset of response was 2 months, and responses lasted from 3.6 to 20 months, Dr. Ott and his associates reported (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 16. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.5069). Two-thirds of patients developed treatment-related adverse events, most often arthralgia, asthenia, rash, diarrhea, and fatigue. Two patients developed grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events, including a 65-year-old man with small cell lung cancer and liver metastasis who developed grade 3 bilirubin elevation, and a 58-year-old woman with a history of sleeve gastrectomy who developed grade 3 asthenia, grade 5 colitis, and intestinal ischemia.

The patient who died had received 10 cycles of pembrolizumab, was hospitalized with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, and was discharged home with a diagnosis of food intolerance, the researchers reported. She received an 11th cycle of pembrolizumab and was readmitted with abdominal pain. A rectal biopsy showed chronic colitis. She received systemic corticosteroids and was discharged, was admitted to a different hospital several weeks later with diffuse abdominal pain and septic shock, and subsequently died. “Mesenteric ischemia resulted in death,” the researchers wrote. “The cause of the colitis and intestinal ischemia was reported as probably related to pembrolizumab.”

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a programmed death receptor–1 blocking antibody approved for treating non–small cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell cancer, classical Hodgkin lymphoma, urothelial carcinoma, and microsatellite instability–high cancer or mismatch repair deficient solid tumors. Treatment with the checkpoint inhibitor led to grade 5 treatment-related adverse events in other trials. Most recently, in July 2017, the Food and Drug Administration placed clinical holds on phase 1 and phase 3 studies of pembrolizumab for treating multiple myeloma after more patients died in the pembrolizumab arms than did in the comparison arms. Pembrolizumab also recently came up short in a phase 3 trial of patients with head and neck cancer, although it has kept its FDA label for this indication. Multiple trials of pembrolizumab for small cell lung cancer are recruiting or ongoing.

Merck funded the study. Dr. Ott disclosed research funding from Merck and several other pharmaceutical companies, and advisory or consulting relationships with several companies, excluding Merck.

Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed durable antitumor activity in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer, and its safety profile resembled that in other tumor types, based on the results of the phase 1b KEYNOTE-028 study of 24 patients.

One patient died of treatment-related mesenteric ischemia, reported Patrick A. Ott, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and his associates. Nonetheless, with an objective response rate of 33% and a median duration of response of 19 months, the checkpoint inhibitor “demonstrated a favorable safety profile and promising durable clinical activity,” they concluded.

Study participants received pembrolizumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for 24 months or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. After a median follow-up of 9.8 months (range, 0.5-24 months), one patient (4%) had a complete response, and seven (29%) had partial responses. The median onset of response was 2 months, and responses lasted from 3.6 to 20 months, Dr. Ott and his associates reported (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 16. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.5069). Two-thirds of patients developed treatment-related adverse events, most often arthralgia, asthenia, rash, diarrhea, and fatigue. Two patients developed grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events, including a 65-year-old man with small cell lung cancer and liver metastasis who developed grade 3 bilirubin elevation, and a 58-year-old woman with a history of sleeve gastrectomy who developed grade 3 asthenia, grade 5 colitis, and intestinal ischemia.

The patient who died had received 10 cycles of pembrolizumab, was hospitalized with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, and was discharged home with a diagnosis of food intolerance, the researchers reported. She received an 11th cycle of pembrolizumab and was readmitted with abdominal pain. A rectal biopsy showed chronic colitis. She received systemic corticosteroids and was discharged, was admitted to a different hospital several weeks later with diffuse abdominal pain and septic shock, and subsequently died. “Mesenteric ischemia resulted in death,” the researchers wrote. “The cause of the colitis and intestinal ischemia was reported as probably related to pembrolizumab.”

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a programmed death receptor–1 blocking antibody approved for treating non–small cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell cancer, classical Hodgkin lymphoma, urothelial carcinoma, and microsatellite instability–high cancer or mismatch repair deficient solid tumors. Treatment with the checkpoint inhibitor led to grade 5 treatment-related adverse events in other trials. Most recently, in July 2017, the Food and Drug Administration placed clinical holds on phase 1 and phase 3 studies of pembrolizumab for treating multiple myeloma after more patients died in the pembrolizumab arms than did in the comparison arms. Pembrolizumab also recently came up short in a phase 3 trial of patients with head and neck cancer, although it has kept its FDA label for this indication. Multiple trials of pembrolizumab for small cell lung cancer are recruiting or ongoing.

Merck funded the study. Dr. Ott disclosed research funding from Merck and several other pharmaceutical companies, and advisory or consulting relationships with several companies, excluding Merck.

The immune-related adverse effects of inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand varied by tumor type in a large systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with melanoma were significantly more likely to develop colitis (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 14.0), diarrhea (OR, 1.9), pruritus (OR, 2.4), and rash (OR, 1.8) compared with patients with non–small cell lung cancer, who were significantly more likely to develop pneumonitis, reported Leila Khoja, MBChB, PhD, of AstraZeneca UK, Melbourn, England, and associates. Patients with melanoma also were significantly more likely to develop arthralgia, hypothyroidism, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea compared with patients with renal cell carcinoma, who were more likely to develop pneumonitis and dyspnea.

“In light of this study, we should be mindful that different tumor types may have different immune-related adverse effect patterns when treated with the same immune checkpoint inhibitor,” the reviewers noted (Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx286).

The review included 48 trials of nearly 7,000 patients with solid tumors who received CTLA-4 inhibitors (26 studies), PD-1 inhibitors (17 studies), PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors (two trials), or both CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors (three trials). The reviewers identified the studies by searching the Medline, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases for prospective trials published from 2003 through November 2015.

Severe or life-threatening immune-related adverse effects developed in 31% of patients who received CTLA-4 inhibitors and 10% of patients who received PD-1 inhibitors. Inhibitors of CTLA-4 were significantly more likely to cause all grades of colitis (OR, 8.7), hypophysitis (OR, 6.5), and rash (OR, 2.0), while PD-1 inhibitors were more strongly linked with pneumonitis (OR 6.4), hypothyroidism (OR 4.3), arthralgia (OR, 3.5), and vitiligo (OR, 3.5).

The reviewers also looked for significant predictors of immune-related colitis and pneumonitis, because these are potentially fatal. They found that pneumonitis was significantly linked to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and colitis to CTLA-4 treatment (P = .04), even after accounting for therapeutic dose and tumor type. No other factors reached significance in this multivariable model.

“Clearly, a more thorough understanding of the mechanisms of immune-related adverse effects is needed, which may lead to the identification of biomarkers to predict the occurrence of toxicity in patients or predict those who have immune-related adverse effects that are unlikely to respond to corticosteroids,” the reviewers concluded. Researchers should also study whether clinical factors such as treatment history or comorbidities affect the risk of immune-related adverse effects from immune checkpoint inhibitors, they said.

The reviewers reported having no funding sources and no relevant conflicts of interest.

The immune-related adverse effects of inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand varied by tumor type in a large systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with melanoma were significantly more likely to develop colitis (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 14.0), diarrhea (OR, 1.9), pruritus (OR, 2.4), and rash (OR, 1.8) compared with patients with non–small cell lung cancer, who were significantly more likely to develop pneumonitis, reported Leila Khoja, MBChB, PhD, of AstraZeneca UK, Melbourn, England, and associates. Patients with melanoma also were significantly more likely to develop arthralgia, hypothyroidism, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea compared with patients with renal cell carcinoma, who were more likely to develop pneumonitis and dyspnea.

“In light of this study, we should be mindful that different tumor types may have different immune-related adverse effect patterns when treated with the same immune checkpoint inhibitor,” the reviewers noted (Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx286).

The review included 48 trials of nearly 7,000 patients with solid tumors who received CTLA-4 inhibitors (26 studies), PD-1 inhibitors (17 studies), PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors (two trials), or both CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors (three trials). The reviewers identified the studies by searching the Medline, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases for prospective trials published from 2003 through November 2015.

Severe or life-threatening immune-related adverse effects developed in 31% of patients who received CTLA-4 inhibitors and 10% of patients who received PD-1 inhibitors. Inhibitors of CTLA-4 were significantly more likely to cause all grades of colitis (OR, 8.7), hypophysitis (OR, 6.5), and rash (OR, 2.0), while PD-1 inhibitors were more strongly linked with pneumonitis (OR 6.4), hypothyroidism (OR 4.3), arthralgia (OR, 3.5), and vitiligo (OR, 3.5).

The reviewers also looked for significant predictors of immune-related colitis and pneumonitis, because these are potentially fatal. They found that pneumonitis was significantly linked to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and colitis to CTLA-4 treatment (P = .04), even after accounting for therapeutic dose and tumor type. No other factors reached significance in this multivariable model.

“Clearly, a more thorough understanding of the mechanisms of immune-related adverse effects is needed, which may lead to the identification of biomarkers to predict the occurrence of toxicity in patients or predict those who have immune-related adverse effects that are unlikely to respond to corticosteroids,” the reviewers concluded. Researchers should also study whether clinical factors such as treatment history or comorbidities affect the risk of immune-related adverse effects from immune checkpoint inhibitors, they said.

The reviewers reported having no funding sources and no relevant conflicts of interest.

The immune-related adverse effects of inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand varied by tumor type in a large systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with melanoma were significantly more likely to develop colitis (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 14.0), diarrhea (OR, 1.9), pruritus (OR, 2.4), and rash (OR, 1.8) compared with patients with non–small cell lung cancer, who were significantly more likely to develop pneumonitis, reported Leila Khoja, MBChB, PhD, of AstraZeneca UK, Melbourn, England, and associates. Patients with melanoma also were significantly more likely to develop arthralgia, hypothyroidism, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea compared with patients with renal cell carcinoma, who were more likely to develop pneumonitis and dyspnea.

“In light of this study, we should be mindful that different tumor types may have different immune-related adverse effect patterns when treated with the same immune checkpoint inhibitor,” the reviewers noted (Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx286).

The review included 48 trials of nearly 7,000 patients with solid tumors who received CTLA-4 inhibitors (26 studies), PD-1 inhibitors (17 studies), PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors (two trials), or both CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors (three trials). The reviewers identified the studies by searching the Medline, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases for prospective trials published from 2003 through November 2015.

Severe or life-threatening immune-related adverse effects developed in 31% of patients who received CTLA-4 inhibitors and 10% of patients who received PD-1 inhibitors. Inhibitors of CTLA-4 were significantly more likely to cause all grades of colitis (OR, 8.7), hypophysitis (OR, 6.5), and rash (OR, 2.0), while PD-1 inhibitors were more strongly linked with pneumonitis (OR 6.4), hypothyroidism (OR 4.3), arthralgia (OR, 3.5), and vitiligo (OR, 3.5).

The reviewers also looked for significant predictors of immune-related colitis and pneumonitis, because these are potentially fatal. They found that pneumonitis was significantly linked to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and colitis to CTLA-4 treatment (P = .04), even after accounting for therapeutic dose and tumor type. No other factors reached significance in this multivariable model.

“Clearly, a more thorough understanding of the mechanisms of immune-related adverse effects is needed, which may lead to the identification of biomarkers to predict the occurrence of toxicity in patients or predict those who have immune-related adverse effects that are unlikely to respond to corticosteroids,” the reviewers concluded. Researchers should also study whether clinical factors such as treatment history or comorbidities affect the risk of immune-related adverse effects from immune checkpoint inhibitors, they said.

The reviewers reported having no funding sources and no relevant conflicts of interest.

BARCELONA – Inhibiting the interleukin-1 beta innate immunity pathway with canakinumab reduced recurrent cardiovascular events and lung cancer in the groundbreaking phase III CANTOS trial, Paul M. Ridker, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“These data provide the first proof that inflammation inhibition in the absence of lipid lowering can improve atherogenic outcomes and potentially alter progression of some fatal cancers,” declared Dr. Ridker, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

BARCELONA – Inhibiting the interleukin-1 beta innate immunity pathway with canakinumab reduced recurrent cardiovascular events and lung cancer in the groundbreaking phase III CANTOS trial, Paul M. Ridker, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“These data provide the first proof that inflammation inhibition in the absence of lipid lowering can improve atherogenic outcomes and potentially alter progression of some fatal cancers,” declared Dr. Ridker, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

BARCELONA – Inhibiting the interleukin-1 beta innate immunity pathway with canakinumab reduced recurrent cardiovascular events and lung cancer in the groundbreaking phase III CANTOS trial, Paul M. Ridker, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“These data provide the first proof that inflammation inhibition in the absence of lipid lowering can improve atherogenic outcomes and potentially alter progression of some fatal cancers,” declared Dr. Ridker, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

BARCELONA – The results of the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS) mark the validation of many years of research on inflammation for Peter Libby, MD, Mallinckrodt Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The CANTOS investigator said that, although some trials, most notably JUPITER, have linked reduced markers of inflammation with reduced cardiovascular events, none have been able to separate the effects of lowering LDL cholesterol from those of lowering the inflammatory marker interleukin-1B.

But using the monoclonal antibody canakinumab to target only interleukin-1B in CANTOS reduced the composite endpoint of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death by 15% at the highest dosage tested, compared with placebo, while lowering high-sensitivity C-reactive protein by 39 percentage points.

Dr. Libby has been studying interleukin-1B since the 1980s. “Now, today, for the first time, in a rigorous trial, we can show that an anti-inflammatory agent that is neutral for lipids (that doesn’t lower LDL) can provide a benefit for our patients, and that’s a real step forward,” Dr. Libby said in a video interview at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

BARCELONA – The results of the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS) mark the validation of many years of research on inflammation for Peter Libby, MD, Mallinckrodt Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The CANTOS investigator said that, although some trials, most notably JUPITER, have linked reduced markers of inflammation with reduced cardiovascular events, none have been able to separate the effects of lowering LDL cholesterol from those of lowering the inflammatory marker interleukin-1B.

But using the monoclonal antibody canakinumab to target only interleukin-1B in CANTOS reduced the composite endpoint of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death by 15% at the highest dosage tested, compared with placebo, while lowering high-sensitivity C-reactive protein by 39 percentage points.

Dr. Libby has been studying interleukin-1B since the 1980s. “Now, today, for the first time, in a rigorous trial, we can show that an anti-inflammatory agent that is neutral for lipids (that doesn’t lower LDL) can provide a benefit for our patients, and that’s a real step forward,” Dr. Libby said in a video interview at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

BARCELONA – The results of the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS) mark the validation of many years of research on inflammation for Peter Libby, MD, Mallinckrodt Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The CANTOS investigator said that, although some trials, most notably JUPITER, have linked reduced markers of inflammation with reduced cardiovascular events, none have been able to separate the effects of lowering LDL cholesterol from those of lowering the inflammatory marker interleukin-1B.

But using the monoclonal antibody canakinumab to target only interleukin-1B in CANTOS reduced the composite endpoint of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death by 15% at the highest dosage tested, compared with placebo, while lowering high-sensitivity C-reactive protein by 39 percentage points.

Dr. Libby has been studying interleukin-1B since the 1980s. “Now, today, for the first time, in a rigorous trial, we can show that an anti-inflammatory agent that is neutral for lipids (that doesn’t lower LDL) can provide a benefit for our patients, and that’s a real step forward,” Dr. Libby said in a video interview at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guideline on systemic therapy for stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), incorporating recommendations on using checkpoint inhibitors in these patients.

The guideline was published recently on the Journal of Clinical Oncology website (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.6065).

Among the recommendations is that, for patients with non–squamous cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma without positive markers such as epidermal growth factor receptor who have high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, first-line treatment should be pembrolizumab alone. For those with low PD-L1 expression, standard chemotherapy should be used.

For second-line treatment in patients who received first-line chemotherapy without prior immune checkpoint treatment, if the NSCLC tumor is positive for PD-L1 expression, single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab should be used.

The guideline is an update of its 2015 recommendations. An expert panel made the changes after a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from February 2014 to December 2016.

Panelists said that there’s still a lot to learn about the use of checkpoint inhibitors in these patients.

“Cancer immunotherapy allows some patients to live longer with a better quality of life than chemotherapy; however, not all patients respond to this treatment,” panelists wrote. “Many factors remain unknown in the understanding of optimal sequencing of immune checkpoint therapy and other agents previously recommended in ASCO guidelines. Contraindications to receiving immune checkpoint therapy are not yet well defined.”

Several panelists report receiving research funding and/or consulting fees from Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Peloton Therapeutics, Genentech, and other companies.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guideline on systemic therapy for stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), incorporating recommendations on using checkpoint inhibitors in these patients.

The guideline was published recently on the Journal of Clinical Oncology website (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.6065).

Among the recommendations is that, for patients with non–squamous cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma without positive markers such as epidermal growth factor receptor who have high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, first-line treatment should be pembrolizumab alone. For those with low PD-L1 expression, standard chemotherapy should be used.

For second-line treatment in patients who received first-line chemotherapy without prior immune checkpoint treatment, if the NSCLC tumor is positive for PD-L1 expression, single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab should be used.

The guideline is an update of its 2015 recommendations. An expert panel made the changes after a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from February 2014 to December 2016.

Panelists said that there’s still a lot to learn about the use of checkpoint inhibitors in these patients.

“Cancer immunotherapy allows some patients to live longer with a better quality of life than chemotherapy; however, not all patients respond to this treatment,” panelists wrote. “Many factors remain unknown in the understanding of optimal sequencing of immune checkpoint therapy and other agents previously recommended in ASCO guidelines. Contraindications to receiving immune checkpoint therapy are not yet well defined.”

Several panelists report receiving research funding and/or consulting fees from Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Peloton Therapeutics, Genentech, and other companies.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guideline on systemic therapy for stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), incorporating recommendations on using checkpoint inhibitors in these patients.

The guideline was published recently on the Journal of Clinical Oncology website (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.6065).

Among the recommendations is that, for patients with non–squamous cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma without positive markers such as epidermal growth factor receptor who have high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, first-line treatment should be pembrolizumab alone. For those with low PD-L1 expression, standard chemotherapy should be used.

For second-line treatment in patients who received first-line chemotherapy without prior immune checkpoint treatment, if the NSCLC tumor is positive for PD-L1 expression, single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab should be used.

The guideline is an update of its 2015 recommendations. An expert panel made the changes after a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from February 2014 to December 2016.

Panelists said that there’s still a lot to learn about the use of checkpoint inhibitors in these patients.

“Cancer immunotherapy allows some patients to live longer with a better quality of life than chemotherapy; however, not all patients respond to this treatment,” panelists wrote. “Many factors remain unknown in the understanding of optimal sequencing of immune checkpoint therapy and other agents previously recommended in ASCO guidelines. Contraindications to receiving immune checkpoint therapy are not yet well defined.”

Several panelists report receiving research funding and/or consulting fees from Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Peloton Therapeutics, Genentech, and other companies.