User login
FDA Approves Durvalumab for Limited-Stage SCLC
The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.
“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”
Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.
Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.
Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.
“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.
The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.
“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”
Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.
Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.
Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.
“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.
The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.
“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”
Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.
Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.
Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.
“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.
The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Cancer Vaccines on the Horizon: Renewed Hope or Hype?
Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.
But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.
Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.
In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.
said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.
A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.
“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.
Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.
“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”
Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.
Then: Where We Were
Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.
In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”
In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”
Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.
In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.
In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.
That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.
In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.
And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.
But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.
When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.
But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.
Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.
“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”
A Turning Point?
Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.
Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.
Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.
Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.
Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.
“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.”
Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.
One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.
But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”
“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”
Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.
“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”
Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.
As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.
But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.
Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.
In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.
said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.
A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.
“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.
Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.
“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”
Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.
Then: Where We Were
Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.
In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”
In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”
Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.
In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.
In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.
That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.
In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.
And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.
But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.
When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.
But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.
Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.
“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”
A Turning Point?
Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.
Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.
Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.
Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.
Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.
“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.”
Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.
One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.
But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”
“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”
Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.
“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”
Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.
As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.
But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.
Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.
In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.
said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.
A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.
“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.
Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.
“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”
Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.
Then: Where We Were
Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.
In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”
In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”
Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.
In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.
In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.
That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.
In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.
And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.
But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.
When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.
But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.
Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.
“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”
A Turning Point?
Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.
Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.
Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.
Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.
Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.
“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.”
Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.
One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.
But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”
“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”
Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.
“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”
Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.
As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Bizengri for NSCLC and Pancreatic Cancers Harboring NRG1 Gene Fusion
Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.
The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.
“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”
The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.
“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”
Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.
The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.
“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”
The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.
“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”
Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.
The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.
“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”
The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.
“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”
Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Inside the Patient-Oncologist Bond: Why It’s Often So Strong
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Thrombocytosis and Cancer Risk: Management in Primary Care
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.
Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.
Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 109 cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).
What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?
Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?
Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.
Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.
Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.
Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.
What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.
We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.
Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.
We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.
Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.
Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.
Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.
Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.
I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.
These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.
I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.
I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.
There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.
Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.
Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.
Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.
Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 109 cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).
What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?
Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?
Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.
Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.
Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.
Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.
What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.
We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.
Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.
We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.
Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.
Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.
Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.
Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.
I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.
These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.
I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.
I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.
There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.
Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.
Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.
Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.
Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 109 cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).
What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?
Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?
Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.
Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.
Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.
Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.
What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.
We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.
Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.
We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.
Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.
Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.
Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.
Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.
I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.
These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.
I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.
I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.
There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.
Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.
Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many Patients With Cancer Visit EDs Before Diagnosis
Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.
Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.
“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”
The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
Neurologic Cancers Prominent
In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.
Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.
Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.
Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).
The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.
“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.
The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.
The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
‘Unpacking the Data’
The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.
“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”
All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.
“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.
Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.
“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”
The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
Neurologic Cancers Prominent
In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.
Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.
Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.
Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).
The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.
“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.
The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.
The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
‘Unpacking the Data’
The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.
“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”
All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.
“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.
Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.
“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”
The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
Neurologic Cancers Prominent
In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.
Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.
Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.
Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).
The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.
“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.
The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.
The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
‘Unpacking the Data’
The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.
“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”
All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.
“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CMAJ
Plasma Omega-6 and Omega-3 Fatty Acids Inversely Associated With Cancer
TOPLINE:
Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
- They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
- Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
- Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
- The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.
TAKEAWAY:
- Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
- Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
- Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
- A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.
IN PRACTICE:
“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
This article was created 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.
TOPLINE:
Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
- They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
- Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
- Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
- The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.
TAKEAWAY:
- Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
- Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
- Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
- A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.
IN PRACTICE:
“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
This article was created 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.
TOPLINE:
Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
- They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
- Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
- Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
- The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.
TAKEAWAY:
- Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
- Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
- Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
- A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.
IN PRACTICE:
“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
This article was created 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.
Climate Change Linked to Lung Cancer in Never-Smokers
The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.
LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.
These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.
Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk
Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.
Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.
In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.
“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
How Clinicians Can Help
Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.
“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.
“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.
In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.
“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”
“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.
LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.
These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.
Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk
Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.
Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.
In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.
“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
How Clinicians Can Help
Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.
“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.
“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.
In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.
“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”
“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.
LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.
These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.
Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk
Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.
Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.
In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.
“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
How Clinicians Can Help
Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.
“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.
“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.
In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.
“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”
“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
For Radiation ‘Downwinders,’ Cancer Compensation Is On Hold
As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.
In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.
“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure
No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?
It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.
Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.
Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:
“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”
In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.
In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.
Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds
In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.
Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.
“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”
The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps
Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.
They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.
In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”
Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues
A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.
Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.
In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.
Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)
The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.
Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West
On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”
With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”
Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”
Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.
In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.
“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure
No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?
It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.
Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.
Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:
“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”
In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.
In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.
Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds
In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.
Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.
“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”
The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps
Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.
They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.
In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”
Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues
A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.
Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.
In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.
Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)
The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.
Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West
On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”
With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”
Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”
Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.
In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.
“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure
No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?
It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.
Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.
Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:
“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”
In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.
In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.
Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds
In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.
Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.
“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”
The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps
Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.
They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.
In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”
Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues
A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.
Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.
In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.
Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)
The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.
Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West
On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”
With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”
Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”
Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Should First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade Be Used for NSCLC With Specific Mutations?
according to the authors of a new paper.
These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.
Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?
The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.
Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.
These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?
The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.
“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.
From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.
As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.
This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.
Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?
Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.
“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.
Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.
“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”
Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?
To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.
“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.
Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.
Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.
Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.
“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?
“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”
This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.
Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.
“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”
The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.
“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”
On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”
Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.
“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”
Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.
“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”
Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.
“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”
The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the authors of a new paper.
These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.
Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?
The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.
Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.
These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?
The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.
“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.
From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.
As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.
This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.
Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?
Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.
“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.
Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.
“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”
Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?
To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.
“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.
Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.
Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.
Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.
“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?
“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”
This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.
Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.
“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”
The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.
“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”
On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”
Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.
“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”
Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.
“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”
Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.
“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”
The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the authors of a new paper.
These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.
Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?
The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.
Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.
These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?
The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.
“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.
From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.
As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.
This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.
Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?
Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.
“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.
Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.
“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”
Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?
To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.
“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.
Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.
Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.
Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.
“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?
“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”
This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.
Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.
“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”
The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.
“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”
On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”
Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.
“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”
Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.
“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”
Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.
“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”
The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.