User login
High-dose TRT: A new standard of care for LS-SCLC?
In a phase 2 trial, the 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% when twice-daily TRT was given at a dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and 75% when it was given at a dose of 60 Gy in 40 fractions in patients with LS-SCLC. The two treatment arms had similar safety and quality of life outcomes.
The higher dose “did not add toxicity,” a significant concern with higher radiation doses, said Bjorn Gronberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, when presenting this study at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
However, the discussant for this study pointed out several limitations of the trial and concluded that the 45 Gy dose should remain the standard of care.
Dr. Gonberg explained that concurrent platinum/etoposide (PE) chemotherapy and TRT is the standard treatment for LS-SCLC, and the most recommended schedule for TRT is twice daily at 45 Gy in 30 fractions. He noted, however, that “there’s clearly a need for better treatment” because less than 30% of patients are cured.
“We hypothesized that increasing the dose of radiotherapy might improve survival,” he said.
Study details
Dr. Gonberg and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial of patients with stage I-III SCLC confined to one hemithorax plus regional lymph nodes. The trial enrolled 176 patients and randomized 170 of them.
The patients received four courses of PE 3 weeks apart. For TRT, 81 patients were randomized to 45 Gy in 30 fractions, and 89 patients were randomized to 60 Gy in 40 fractions, with 10 fractions per week starting with the second PE course.
All patients who responded to chemoradiotherapy were offered prophylactic cranial irradiation at 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 30 Gy in 15 fractions.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 65 years in both arms, and most patients were women (60.5% in the 45 Gy arm and 56% in the 60 Gy arm).
The mean number of chemotherapy courses was 3.8 in each arm, about 85% of patients received prophylactic cranial radiation, and roughly half received second-line chemotherapy. Overall, 73 patients completed TRT in the 45 Gy arm, and 81 completed TRT in the 60 Gy arm.
Efficacy
There was no significant difference in overall response rate between the treatment arms. It was 81.6% in the 45 Gy arm and 82.1% in the 60 Gy arm (P = .81).
Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months in the lower-dose arm and 18.7 months in the higher-dose arm (P = .22).
Still, there was a significant difference in overall survival between the arms. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% in the lower-dose arm and 75% in the higher-dose arm (P = .002). The median overall survival was 24 months and 37.2 months, respectively (P = .034).
Discussant Corinne Faivre-Finn, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), cautioned that the lower-dose arm appeared to underperform, compared with prior research.
Additionally, “the survival curves separate at about 9 months, [with a] significant difference at 2 years, but the survival curves are coming back together at around 5 years, and that shows that there is a small difference in terms of long-term cure,” she said.
Safety
There were no significant differences in toxicity between the treatment arms.
Dr. Gronberg noted that esophagitis is considered the main dose-limiting toxicity with TRT, but there was no difference in incidence between the two arms (P = .916). Grade 3 esophagitis occurred in 18.4% of patients in the lower-dose arm and 19% of those in the higher-dose arm. There was no grade 4 esophagitis.
Rates of grade 3 and 4 neutropenic infections were higher in the lower-dose arm than in the higher-dose arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08).
There were also no significant differences in quality of life surveys that patients filled out periodically from baseline until week 52.
“Not so surprisingly,” Dr. Gronberg said, dysphagia was more common at the end of TRT. However, patients had recovered to baseline levels at week 22.
“There’s no difference in the maximum dysphagia reported between the treatment arms, but ... patients in the high-dose arm needed longer time to recover from dysphagia,” Dr. Gronberg said.
Scores for dyspnea, physical function, and global quality of life were similar between the treatment arms.
The similar toxicity between the arms “is quite puzzling,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said, given the 33% increase in radiation dose in the experimental arm. She said this “probably points out an imbalance in some of the factors” between the groups, including tumor volume and doses to organs at risk, which were not reported.
“There are some important missing data, in terms of interpretation of results,” she said.
Given the limitations, and the fact that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Faivre-Finn said “the results cannot be considered definitive and practice changing,” pending additional study.
“So my final conclusion is that twice-a-day radiotherapy at a dose of 45 Gy remains the standard of care, as recommended in the recently published ASTRO [American Society for Radiation Oncology] guidelines,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said.
The study was funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Dr. Gronberg disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Faivre-Finn disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Elekta, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Gronberg B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 1783O.
In a phase 2 trial, the 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% when twice-daily TRT was given at a dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and 75% when it was given at a dose of 60 Gy in 40 fractions in patients with LS-SCLC. The two treatment arms had similar safety and quality of life outcomes.
The higher dose “did not add toxicity,” a significant concern with higher radiation doses, said Bjorn Gronberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, when presenting this study at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
However, the discussant for this study pointed out several limitations of the trial and concluded that the 45 Gy dose should remain the standard of care.
Dr. Gonberg explained that concurrent platinum/etoposide (PE) chemotherapy and TRT is the standard treatment for LS-SCLC, and the most recommended schedule for TRT is twice daily at 45 Gy in 30 fractions. He noted, however, that “there’s clearly a need for better treatment” because less than 30% of patients are cured.
“We hypothesized that increasing the dose of radiotherapy might improve survival,” he said.
Study details
Dr. Gonberg and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial of patients with stage I-III SCLC confined to one hemithorax plus regional lymph nodes. The trial enrolled 176 patients and randomized 170 of them.
The patients received four courses of PE 3 weeks apart. For TRT, 81 patients were randomized to 45 Gy in 30 fractions, and 89 patients were randomized to 60 Gy in 40 fractions, with 10 fractions per week starting with the second PE course.
All patients who responded to chemoradiotherapy were offered prophylactic cranial irradiation at 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 30 Gy in 15 fractions.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 65 years in both arms, and most patients were women (60.5% in the 45 Gy arm and 56% in the 60 Gy arm).
The mean number of chemotherapy courses was 3.8 in each arm, about 85% of patients received prophylactic cranial radiation, and roughly half received second-line chemotherapy. Overall, 73 patients completed TRT in the 45 Gy arm, and 81 completed TRT in the 60 Gy arm.
Efficacy
There was no significant difference in overall response rate between the treatment arms. It was 81.6% in the 45 Gy arm and 82.1% in the 60 Gy arm (P = .81).
Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months in the lower-dose arm and 18.7 months in the higher-dose arm (P = .22).
Still, there was a significant difference in overall survival between the arms. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% in the lower-dose arm and 75% in the higher-dose arm (P = .002). The median overall survival was 24 months and 37.2 months, respectively (P = .034).
Discussant Corinne Faivre-Finn, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), cautioned that the lower-dose arm appeared to underperform, compared with prior research.
Additionally, “the survival curves separate at about 9 months, [with a] significant difference at 2 years, but the survival curves are coming back together at around 5 years, and that shows that there is a small difference in terms of long-term cure,” she said.
Safety
There were no significant differences in toxicity between the treatment arms.
Dr. Gronberg noted that esophagitis is considered the main dose-limiting toxicity with TRT, but there was no difference in incidence between the two arms (P = .916). Grade 3 esophagitis occurred in 18.4% of patients in the lower-dose arm and 19% of those in the higher-dose arm. There was no grade 4 esophagitis.
Rates of grade 3 and 4 neutropenic infections were higher in the lower-dose arm than in the higher-dose arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08).
There were also no significant differences in quality of life surveys that patients filled out periodically from baseline until week 52.
“Not so surprisingly,” Dr. Gronberg said, dysphagia was more common at the end of TRT. However, patients had recovered to baseline levels at week 22.
“There’s no difference in the maximum dysphagia reported between the treatment arms, but ... patients in the high-dose arm needed longer time to recover from dysphagia,” Dr. Gronberg said.
Scores for dyspnea, physical function, and global quality of life were similar between the treatment arms.
The similar toxicity between the arms “is quite puzzling,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said, given the 33% increase in radiation dose in the experimental arm. She said this “probably points out an imbalance in some of the factors” between the groups, including tumor volume and doses to organs at risk, which were not reported.
“There are some important missing data, in terms of interpretation of results,” she said.
Given the limitations, and the fact that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Faivre-Finn said “the results cannot be considered definitive and practice changing,” pending additional study.
“So my final conclusion is that twice-a-day radiotherapy at a dose of 45 Gy remains the standard of care, as recommended in the recently published ASTRO [American Society for Radiation Oncology] guidelines,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said.
The study was funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Dr. Gronberg disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Faivre-Finn disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Elekta, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Gronberg B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 1783O.
In a phase 2 trial, the 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% when twice-daily TRT was given at a dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and 75% when it was given at a dose of 60 Gy in 40 fractions in patients with LS-SCLC. The two treatment arms had similar safety and quality of life outcomes.
The higher dose “did not add toxicity,” a significant concern with higher radiation doses, said Bjorn Gronberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, when presenting this study at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
However, the discussant for this study pointed out several limitations of the trial and concluded that the 45 Gy dose should remain the standard of care.
Dr. Gonberg explained that concurrent platinum/etoposide (PE) chemotherapy and TRT is the standard treatment for LS-SCLC, and the most recommended schedule for TRT is twice daily at 45 Gy in 30 fractions. He noted, however, that “there’s clearly a need for better treatment” because less than 30% of patients are cured.
“We hypothesized that increasing the dose of radiotherapy might improve survival,” he said.
Study details
Dr. Gonberg and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial of patients with stage I-III SCLC confined to one hemithorax plus regional lymph nodes. The trial enrolled 176 patients and randomized 170 of them.
The patients received four courses of PE 3 weeks apart. For TRT, 81 patients were randomized to 45 Gy in 30 fractions, and 89 patients were randomized to 60 Gy in 40 fractions, with 10 fractions per week starting with the second PE course.
All patients who responded to chemoradiotherapy were offered prophylactic cranial irradiation at 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 30 Gy in 15 fractions.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 65 years in both arms, and most patients were women (60.5% in the 45 Gy arm and 56% in the 60 Gy arm).
The mean number of chemotherapy courses was 3.8 in each arm, about 85% of patients received prophylactic cranial radiation, and roughly half received second-line chemotherapy. Overall, 73 patients completed TRT in the 45 Gy arm, and 81 completed TRT in the 60 Gy arm.
Efficacy
There was no significant difference in overall response rate between the treatment arms. It was 81.6% in the 45 Gy arm and 82.1% in the 60 Gy arm (P = .81).
Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months in the lower-dose arm and 18.7 months in the higher-dose arm (P = .22).
Still, there was a significant difference in overall survival between the arms. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% in the lower-dose arm and 75% in the higher-dose arm (P = .002). The median overall survival was 24 months and 37.2 months, respectively (P = .034).
Discussant Corinne Faivre-Finn, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), cautioned that the lower-dose arm appeared to underperform, compared with prior research.
Additionally, “the survival curves separate at about 9 months, [with a] significant difference at 2 years, but the survival curves are coming back together at around 5 years, and that shows that there is a small difference in terms of long-term cure,” she said.
Safety
There were no significant differences in toxicity between the treatment arms.
Dr. Gronberg noted that esophagitis is considered the main dose-limiting toxicity with TRT, but there was no difference in incidence between the two arms (P = .916). Grade 3 esophagitis occurred in 18.4% of patients in the lower-dose arm and 19% of those in the higher-dose arm. There was no grade 4 esophagitis.
Rates of grade 3 and 4 neutropenic infections were higher in the lower-dose arm than in the higher-dose arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08).
There were also no significant differences in quality of life surveys that patients filled out periodically from baseline until week 52.
“Not so surprisingly,” Dr. Gronberg said, dysphagia was more common at the end of TRT. However, patients had recovered to baseline levels at week 22.
“There’s no difference in the maximum dysphagia reported between the treatment arms, but ... patients in the high-dose arm needed longer time to recover from dysphagia,” Dr. Gronberg said.
Scores for dyspnea, physical function, and global quality of life were similar between the treatment arms.
The similar toxicity between the arms “is quite puzzling,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said, given the 33% increase in radiation dose in the experimental arm. She said this “probably points out an imbalance in some of the factors” between the groups, including tumor volume and doses to organs at risk, which were not reported.
“There are some important missing data, in terms of interpretation of results,” she said.
Given the limitations, and the fact that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Faivre-Finn said “the results cannot be considered definitive and practice changing,” pending additional study.
“So my final conclusion is that twice-a-day radiotherapy at a dose of 45 Gy remains the standard of care, as recommended in the recently published ASTRO [American Society for Radiation Oncology] guidelines,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said.
The study was funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Dr. Gronberg disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Faivre-Finn disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Elekta, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Gronberg B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 1783O.
FROM ESMO 2020
Apatinib plus gefitinib: Better PFS but more toxicity
ACTIVE is the first phase 3 trial of an oral vascular epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (VEGFR2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) added to an EGFR-TKI as first-line therapy in this population, according to Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
Dr. Zhang presented results from ACTIVE at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
“This dual oral regimen will provide more convenient treatment for patients who require long-term administration,” Dr. Zhang said. He added that apatinib plus gefitinib “is expected to become a new first-line treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.”
A discussant for the ACTIVE study was less optimistic, however, noting that the regimen proved tough to tolerate for some patients, and the PFS benefit may not translate to overall survival.
Study rationale and details
Sensitizing EGFR mutations occur in about 10% of White patients and up to 50% of Asian patients, Dr. Zhang noted. Unfortunately, most patients progress after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs because of acquired resistance.
Blocking VEGF receptor pathways has been shown to enhance EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, and pilot study results have shown apatinib – an oral VEGFR2–TKI – to be safe and well-tolerated with promising efficacy in combination with gefitinib, Dr. Zhang added.
To expand upon those results, he and his colleagues tested apatinib with gefitinib in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled ACTIVE trial (CTONG1706).
The trial included 313 patients (median age, 58.5 years) with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. All were chemotherapy-naive and EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R).
Patients were randomized 1:1 to first-line apatinib at 500 mg daily plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 157) or placebo plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 156) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
Efficacy and safety
The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review. The median follow-up was 15.8 months.
The median PFS was 13.7 months in the apatinib group and 10.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0189).
Objective response rates were similar for both groups – 77.1% with apatinib and 73.7% with placebo. However, depth of response ≥30% and depth of response ≥50% both favored the apatinib arm – 89.2% versus 79.5% for ≥ 30% (P = .0209) and 64.3% versus 52.6% for ≥50% (P = .0238).
In addition, the median duration of response was longer for the apatinib group – 12.9 months versus 9.3 months (HR, 0.64; P = .005).
Exploratory biomarker analyses showed the benefit of apatinib was more common in patients with TP53 exon 8 mutations.
The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events was 84.1% in the apatinib arm and 37.7% in the placebo arm. Diarrhea (73.2%) and hypertension (68.2%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the apatinib group.
Dose interruptions were more common in the apatinib group (59.5% vs. 22.7%) as were dose reductions (48.4% vs. 4.5%). However, treatment discontinuations attributable to treatment-emergent adverse events were few in both arms (5.1% in the apatinib arm and 3.2% in the placebo arm).
Cause for hesitation
“VEGFR-TKIs have not yet found a solid home in lung cancer,” said study discussant Lecia V. Sequist, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Listing 10 VEGFR-TKIs, Dr. Sequist noted: “None of them have changed practice.”
She added that, while an all-oral regimen is appealing, the benefit of adding apatinib to gefitinib was modest, and the regimen was “fairly difficult” to tolerate. “The PFS with apatinib plus gefitinib is well below what we see with other EGFR/VEGF first-line studies,” she said.
Dr. Sequist also observed that most studies have shown a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit. “That, in combination with the toxicity, makes me a little hesitant about this regimen. The role of VEGF remains unclear in EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer in 2020,” she concluded.
The ACTIVE study was funded by Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group, and grants from Sun Yat-sen University and the National Key R&D Program of China. Dr. Zhang disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sequist disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Zhang L et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA50.
ACTIVE is the first phase 3 trial of an oral vascular epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (VEGFR2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) added to an EGFR-TKI as first-line therapy in this population, according to Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
Dr. Zhang presented results from ACTIVE at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
“This dual oral regimen will provide more convenient treatment for patients who require long-term administration,” Dr. Zhang said. He added that apatinib plus gefitinib “is expected to become a new first-line treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.”
A discussant for the ACTIVE study was less optimistic, however, noting that the regimen proved tough to tolerate for some patients, and the PFS benefit may not translate to overall survival.
Study rationale and details
Sensitizing EGFR mutations occur in about 10% of White patients and up to 50% of Asian patients, Dr. Zhang noted. Unfortunately, most patients progress after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs because of acquired resistance.
Blocking VEGF receptor pathways has been shown to enhance EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, and pilot study results have shown apatinib – an oral VEGFR2–TKI – to be safe and well-tolerated with promising efficacy in combination with gefitinib, Dr. Zhang added.
To expand upon those results, he and his colleagues tested apatinib with gefitinib in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled ACTIVE trial (CTONG1706).
The trial included 313 patients (median age, 58.5 years) with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. All were chemotherapy-naive and EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R).
Patients were randomized 1:1 to first-line apatinib at 500 mg daily plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 157) or placebo plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 156) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
Efficacy and safety
The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review. The median follow-up was 15.8 months.
The median PFS was 13.7 months in the apatinib group and 10.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0189).
Objective response rates were similar for both groups – 77.1% with apatinib and 73.7% with placebo. However, depth of response ≥30% and depth of response ≥50% both favored the apatinib arm – 89.2% versus 79.5% for ≥ 30% (P = .0209) and 64.3% versus 52.6% for ≥50% (P = .0238).
In addition, the median duration of response was longer for the apatinib group – 12.9 months versus 9.3 months (HR, 0.64; P = .005).
Exploratory biomarker analyses showed the benefit of apatinib was more common in patients with TP53 exon 8 mutations.
The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events was 84.1% in the apatinib arm and 37.7% in the placebo arm. Diarrhea (73.2%) and hypertension (68.2%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the apatinib group.
Dose interruptions were more common in the apatinib group (59.5% vs. 22.7%) as were dose reductions (48.4% vs. 4.5%). However, treatment discontinuations attributable to treatment-emergent adverse events were few in both arms (5.1% in the apatinib arm and 3.2% in the placebo arm).
Cause for hesitation
“VEGFR-TKIs have not yet found a solid home in lung cancer,” said study discussant Lecia V. Sequist, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Listing 10 VEGFR-TKIs, Dr. Sequist noted: “None of them have changed practice.”
She added that, while an all-oral regimen is appealing, the benefit of adding apatinib to gefitinib was modest, and the regimen was “fairly difficult” to tolerate. “The PFS with apatinib plus gefitinib is well below what we see with other EGFR/VEGF first-line studies,” she said.
Dr. Sequist also observed that most studies have shown a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit. “That, in combination with the toxicity, makes me a little hesitant about this regimen. The role of VEGF remains unclear in EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer in 2020,” she concluded.
The ACTIVE study was funded by Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group, and grants from Sun Yat-sen University and the National Key R&D Program of China. Dr. Zhang disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sequist disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Zhang L et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA50.
ACTIVE is the first phase 3 trial of an oral vascular epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (VEGFR2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) added to an EGFR-TKI as first-line therapy in this population, according to Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
Dr. Zhang presented results from ACTIVE at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
“This dual oral regimen will provide more convenient treatment for patients who require long-term administration,” Dr. Zhang said. He added that apatinib plus gefitinib “is expected to become a new first-line treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.”
A discussant for the ACTIVE study was less optimistic, however, noting that the regimen proved tough to tolerate for some patients, and the PFS benefit may not translate to overall survival.
Study rationale and details
Sensitizing EGFR mutations occur in about 10% of White patients and up to 50% of Asian patients, Dr. Zhang noted. Unfortunately, most patients progress after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs because of acquired resistance.
Blocking VEGF receptor pathways has been shown to enhance EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, and pilot study results have shown apatinib – an oral VEGFR2–TKI – to be safe and well-tolerated with promising efficacy in combination with gefitinib, Dr. Zhang added.
To expand upon those results, he and his colleagues tested apatinib with gefitinib in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled ACTIVE trial (CTONG1706).
The trial included 313 patients (median age, 58.5 years) with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. All were chemotherapy-naive and EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R).
Patients were randomized 1:1 to first-line apatinib at 500 mg daily plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 157) or placebo plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 156) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
Efficacy and safety
The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review. The median follow-up was 15.8 months.
The median PFS was 13.7 months in the apatinib group and 10.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0189).
Objective response rates were similar for both groups – 77.1% with apatinib and 73.7% with placebo. However, depth of response ≥30% and depth of response ≥50% both favored the apatinib arm – 89.2% versus 79.5% for ≥ 30% (P = .0209) and 64.3% versus 52.6% for ≥50% (P = .0238).
In addition, the median duration of response was longer for the apatinib group – 12.9 months versus 9.3 months (HR, 0.64; P = .005).
Exploratory biomarker analyses showed the benefit of apatinib was more common in patients with TP53 exon 8 mutations.
The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events was 84.1% in the apatinib arm and 37.7% in the placebo arm. Diarrhea (73.2%) and hypertension (68.2%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the apatinib group.
Dose interruptions were more common in the apatinib group (59.5% vs. 22.7%) as were dose reductions (48.4% vs. 4.5%). However, treatment discontinuations attributable to treatment-emergent adverse events were few in both arms (5.1% in the apatinib arm and 3.2% in the placebo arm).
Cause for hesitation
“VEGFR-TKIs have not yet found a solid home in lung cancer,” said study discussant Lecia V. Sequist, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Listing 10 VEGFR-TKIs, Dr. Sequist noted: “None of them have changed practice.”
She added that, while an all-oral regimen is appealing, the benefit of adding apatinib to gefitinib was modest, and the regimen was “fairly difficult” to tolerate. “The PFS with apatinib plus gefitinib is well below what we see with other EGFR/VEGF first-line studies,” she said.
Dr. Sequist also observed that most studies have shown a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit. “That, in combination with the toxicity, makes me a little hesitant about this regimen. The role of VEGF remains unclear in EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer in 2020,” she concluded.
The ACTIVE study was funded by Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group, and grants from Sun Yat-sen University and the National Key R&D Program of China. Dr. Zhang disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sequist disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Zhang L et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA50.
FROM ESMO 2020
The scope of under- and overtreatment in older adults with cancer
Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.
Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.
The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
About scoping reviews
Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.
Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:
- Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
- Search multiple databases in multiple languages
- Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
- Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
- Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
- Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
- Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
- Identify implications for further research.
In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.
Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
Findings and implications
To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.
For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.
Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).
Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).
Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
Care of individual patients and clinical research
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.
In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.
Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.
Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains
Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.
Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.
As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.
An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).
Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.
Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.
These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.
Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.
Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.
The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
About scoping reviews
Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.
Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:
- Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
- Search multiple databases in multiple languages
- Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
- Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
- Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
- Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
- Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
- Identify implications for further research.
In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.
Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
Findings and implications
To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.
For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.
Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).
Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).
Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
Care of individual patients and clinical research
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.
In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.
Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.
Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains
Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.
Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.
As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.
An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).
Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.
Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.
These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.
Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.
Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.
The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
About scoping reviews
Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.
Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:
- Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
- Search multiple databases in multiple languages
- Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
- Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
- Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
- Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
- Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
- Identify implications for further research.
In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.
Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
Findings and implications
To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.
For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.
Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).
Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).
Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
Care of individual patients and clinical research
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.
In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.
Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.
Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains
Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.
Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.
As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.
An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).
Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.
Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.
These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.
Cancer disparities: One of the most pressing public health issues
“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.”
AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.
He noted that:
- Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
- Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
- Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
- Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
- In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.
“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
Making progress against cancer
Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.
U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.
Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.
A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.
This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.
However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further.
They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:
- The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
- The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
- The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.
Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.
Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.
Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.
“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.
Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.
The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”
Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.
“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.”
AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.
He noted that:
- Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
- Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
- Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
- Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
- In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.
“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
Making progress against cancer
Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.
U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.
Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.
A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.
This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.
However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further.
They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:
- The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
- The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
- The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.
Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.
Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.
Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.
“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.
Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.
The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”
Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.
“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.”
AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.
He noted that:
- Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
- Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
- Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
- Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
- In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.
“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
Making progress against cancer
Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.
U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.
Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.
A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.
This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.
However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further.
They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:
- The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
- The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
- The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.
Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.
Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.
Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.
“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.
Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.
The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”
Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.
“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Global stomach cancer deaths decline as colorectal cancer deaths stagnate, rise
The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.
As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.
The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.
“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.
The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.
SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.
The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
Results of the analysis
“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.
Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.
In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.
On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.
The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.
“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
Explaining the GI cancer results
“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.
H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.
While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.
A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.
At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
Reducing NCD deaths
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.
High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.
“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”
Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.
“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.
Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.
The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.
“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.
“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.
COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.
The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.
The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.
The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.
As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.
The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.
“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.
The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.
SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.
The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
Results of the analysis
“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.
Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.
In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.
On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.
The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.
“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
Explaining the GI cancer results
“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.
H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.
While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.
A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.
At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
Reducing NCD deaths
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.
High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.
“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”
Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.
“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.
Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.
The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.
“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.
“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.
COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.
The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.
The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.
The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.
As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.
The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.
“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.
The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.
SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.
The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
Results of the analysis
“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.
Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.
In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.
On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.
The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.
“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
Explaining the GI cancer results
“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.
H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.
While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.
A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.
At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
Reducing NCD deaths
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.
High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.
“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”
Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.
“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.
Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.
The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.
“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.
“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.
COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.
The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.
The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.
FROM THE LANCET
Sotorasib is a ‘triumph of drug discovery’ in cancer
KRAS, one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer, has long been thought to be “undruggable,” but early results from a clinical trial of the experimental KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Amgen) suggest that at least one KRAS mutation common in non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) has a soft underbelly.
In the phase 1 CodeBreaK 100 trial, sotorasib, an investigational first-in-class inhibitor of the KRAS p.G12C mutation, showed encouraging activity against advanced NSCLC and other solid tumors.
Among patients with NSCLC, 19 (32.2%) of 59 had a confirmed objective response to sotorasib monotherapy, and 52 (88.1%) had disease control, reported David S. Hong, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“Sotorasib also demonstrated durable disease control in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Hong.
He presented secondary efficacy endpoint results from the trial in an online presentation during the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial met its primary endpoint of safety of sotorasib, with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatal adverse events, and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in less than 20% of patients.
“The safety profile is more favorable than that of other targeted agents, and I think the reason why you have a quite safe compound here is that sotorasib is very specific in its binding to KRAS G12C, and KRAS G12C is only present in the tumor,” coinvestigator Marwan G. Fakih, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. Fakih was co–lead author of the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
A real “triumph”
Sotorasib is “a triumph of drug discovery,” commented Colin Lindsay, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant.
“We know that KRAS, over many years, over 3 decades, has been very difficult to target,” he said.
“The early development of KRAS G12C–targeted agents is just the beginning, lending hope that the ability to target not only other KRAS mutations but also other targets previously thought to be undruggable may be within reach,” write Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, from the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold, PhD, from the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial.
The KRAS, which stands for Kristen rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, p.G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form. The mutation has been identified in approximately 13% of NSCLC tumors, in 1% to 7% of colorectal cancers, and in other solid tumors.
But the mutation has been considered too difficult to target because of KRAS’ strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate (GTP), an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug binding sites.
Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form, Dr. Fakih explained.
Study details
The CodeBreaK 100 investigators enrolled patients with 13 different locally advanced or metastatic solid tumor types, all bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation.
The trial began with a dose-escalation phase, with two to four patients per cohort assigned to receive daily oral sotorasib at doses of 180, 360, 720, or 960 mg. The 960 mg dose was selected for expansion cohorts and for planned phase 2 studies, based on the safety profile and the lack of dose-limiting toxicities.
Hong and colleagues reported results for 129 patients treated in the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts, including 59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer and 28 with other tumor types, but focused primarily on patients with NSCLC.
After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, 59 patients with NSCLC had been treated, 3 at the 180 mg dose, 16 at 360 mg, 6 at 720 mg, and 34 at 960 mg. At the time of data cutoff in June of this year, 14 patients were still on treatment and 45 had discontinued, either from disease progression (35 patients), death (5), patient request (4) or adverse events (1).
As noted, there were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatalities reported.
Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 18.6% of patients. The only grade 4 treatment-related event was diarrhea, in one patient. Grade 3 events included elevated liver transaminases in nine patients, increased alkaline phosphatase in two, anemia in one, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase levels, decreased lymphocyte count, hepatitis, and hyponatremia in one patient each.
Dr. Fakih said that, given sotorasib’s high degree of specificity, it’s unclear what might be causing the observed adverse events.
Responses at all dose levels
The confirmed partial response rate was 32.2% for patients with NSCLC treated at all dose levels, and 35.3% for patients who received the 960 mg dose.
Among all NSCLC patients, and all treated at the highest 960-mg dose level, the stable disease rates were 55.9%. The respective disease control rates were 88.1% and 91.2%.
Tumor reductions occurred across all dose levels in patients with NSCLC. The median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.
Hong reported results for one patient, a 59-year-old man with the mutation who had experienced disease progression on five prior therapies including targeted agents, chemotherapy, and a checkpoint inhibitor, and had gamma-knife surgery for brain lesions.
This patient had a complete response in target lesions and a partial response overall, which included shrinkage of central nervous system metastases. He recently had progression in non-target lesions, after 1.5 years in response, Dr. Hong said.
The median duration of response was 10.9 months for patients with partial responses and 4 months for patients with stable disease.
Hong noted that response to sotorasib was seen across a range of co-mutational profiles, including several patients with four mutations in addition to KRAS p.G12C.
Other tumors, possible combinations
Among 42 patients with colorectal cancers bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation, 3 (7.1%) had a partial response. There were also partial responses seen in one patient each with melanoma and with appendiceal, endometrial, and pancreatic tumors.
“Overall, the results of this trial are very encouraging, showing the first step in ‘drugging the undruggable,’ ” Dr. LoRusso and Dr. Sebolt-Leopold wrote in their editorial.
They suggested that therapy with sotorasib may be improved by combining it with other agents that could target resistance to KRAS inhibition.
“A recent study showed that KRAS G12C colorectal cancer cells have higher basal epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity than NSCLC cells, leading to a rapid rebound in mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase signaling and resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition,” the editorialists wrote. “This observation is consistent with the weaker observed clinical activity of sotorasib in patients with colorectal cancer, a problem that may be addressed by combining it with an EGFR inhibitor [e.g., cetuximab], as seen preclinically.”
“I think this drug is being positioned not only in refractory disease, but we’re hoping to see it move upfront in non–small cell lung cancer, and we’re hoping to improve its efficacy in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Fakih said in an interview.
The study was sponsored by Amgen and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hong disclosed research/grant funding and an advisory/consulting role with Amgen and others. Dr. Fakih disclosed a speaking engagement for Amgen and consulting for and grant support from others. Dr. Lindsay disclosed consulting for Amgen and institutional research funding from the company and others. Dr. LoRusso disclosed fees from multiple companies, not including Amgen. Dr. Sebolt-Leopold disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
KRAS, one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer, has long been thought to be “undruggable,” but early results from a clinical trial of the experimental KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Amgen) suggest that at least one KRAS mutation common in non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) has a soft underbelly.
In the phase 1 CodeBreaK 100 trial, sotorasib, an investigational first-in-class inhibitor of the KRAS p.G12C mutation, showed encouraging activity against advanced NSCLC and other solid tumors.
Among patients with NSCLC, 19 (32.2%) of 59 had a confirmed objective response to sotorasib monotherapy, and 52 (88.1%) had disease control, reported David S. Hong, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“Sotorasib also demonstrated durable disease control in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Hong.
He presented secondary efficacy endpoint results from the trial in an online presentation during the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial met its primary endpoint of safety of sotorasib, with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatal adverse events, and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in less than 20% of patients.
“The safety profile is more favorable than that of other targeted agents, and I think the reason why you have a quite safe compound here is that sotorasib is very specific in its binding to KRAS G12C, and KRAS G12C is only present in the tumor,” coinvestigator Marwan G. Fakih, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. Fakih was co–lead author of the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
A real “triumph”
Sotorasib is “a triumph of drug discovery,” commented Colin Lindsay, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant.
“We know that KRAS, over many years, over 3 decades, has been very difficult to target,” he said.
“The early development of KRAS G12C–targeted agents is just the beginning, lending hope that the ability to target not only other KRAS mutations but also other targets previously thought to be undruggable may be within reach,” write Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, from the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold, PhD, from the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial.
The KRAS, which stands for Kristen rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, p.G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form. The mutation has been identified in approximately 13% of NSCLC tumors, in 1% to 7% of colorectal cancers, and in other solid tumors.
But the mutation has been considered too difficult to target because of KRAS’ strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate (GTP), an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug binding sites.
Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form, Dr. Fakih explained.
Study details
The CodeBreaK 100 investigators enrolled patients with 13 different locally advanced or metastatic solid tumor types, all bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation.
The trial began with a dose-escalation phase, with two to four patients per cohort assigned to receive daily oral sotorasib at doses of 180, 360, 720, or 960 mg. The 960 mg dose was selected for expansion cohorts and for planned phase 2 studies, based on the safety profile and the lack of dose-limiting toxicities.
Hong and colleagues reported results for 129 patients treated in the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts, including 59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer and 28 with other tumor types, but focused primarily on patients with NSCLC.
After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, 59 patients with NSCLC had been treated, 3 at the 180 mg dose, 16 at 360 mg, 6 at 720 mg, and 34 at 960 mg. At the time of data cutoff in June of this year, 14 patients were still on treatment and 45 had discontinued, either from disease progression (35 patients), death (5), patient request (4) or adverse events (1).
As noted, there were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatalities reported.
Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 18.6% of patients. The only grade 4 treatment-related event was diarrhea, in one patient. Grade 3 events included elevated liver transaminases in nine patients, increased alkaline phosphatase in two, anemia in one, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase levels, decreased lymphocyte count, hepatitis, and hyponatremia in one patient each.
Dr. Fakih said that, given sotorasib’s high degree of specificity, it’s unclear what might be causing the observed adverse events.
Responses at all dose levels
The confirmed partial response rate was 32.2% for patients with NSCLC treated at all dose levels, and 35.3% for patients who received the 960 mg dose.
Among all NSCLC patients, and all treated at the highest 960-mg dose level, the stable disease rates were 55.9%. The respective disease control rates were 88.1% and 91.2%.
Tumor reductions occurred across all dose levels in patients with NSCLC. The median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.
Hong reported results for one patient, a 59-year-old man with the mutation who had experienced disease progression on five prior therapies including targeted agents, chemotherapy, and a checkpoint inhibitor, and had gamma-knife surgery for brain lesions.
This patient had a complete response in target lesions and a partial response overall, which included shrinkage of central nervous system metastases. He recently had progression in non-target lesions, after 1.5 years in response, Dr. Hong said.
The median duration of response was 10.9 months for patients with partial responses and 4 months for patients with stable disease.
Hong noted that response to sotorasib was seen across a range of co-mutational profiles, including several patients with four mutations in addition to KRAS p.G12C.
Other tumors, possible combinations
Among 42 patients with colorectal cancers bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation, 3 (7.1%) had a partial response. There were also partial responses seen in one patient each with melanoma and with appendiceal, endometrial, and pancreatic tumors.
“Overall, the results of this trial are very encouraging, showing the first step in ‘drugging the undruggable,’ ” Dr. LoRusso and Dr. Sebolt-Leopold wrote in their editorial.
They suggested that therapy with sotorasib may be improved by combining it with other agents that could target resistance to KRAS inhibition.
“A recent study showed that KRAS G12C colorectal cancer cells have higher basal epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity than NSCLC cells, leading to a rapid rebound in mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase signaling and resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition,” the editorialists wrote. “This observation is consistent with the weaker observed clinical activity of sotorasib in patients with colorectal cancer, a problem that may be addressed by combining it with an EGFR inhibitor [e.g., cetuximab], as seen preclinically.”
“I think this drug is being positioned not only in refractory disease, but we’re hoping to see it move upfront in non–small cell lung cancer, and we’re hoping to improve its efficacy in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Fakih said in an interview.
The study was sponsored by Amgen and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hong disclosed research/grant funding and an advisory/consulting role with Amgen and others. Dr. Fakih disclosed a speaking engagement for Amgen and consulting for and grant support from others. Dr. Lindsay disclosed consulting for Amgen and institutional research funding from the company and others. Dr. LoRusso disclosed fees from multiple companies, not including Amgen. Dr. Sebolt-Leopold disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
KRAS, one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer, has long been thought to be “undruggable,” but early results from a clinical trial of the experimental KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Amgen) suggest that at least one KRAS mutation common in non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) has a soft underbelly.
In the phase 1 CodeBreaK 100 trial, sotorasib, an investigational first-in-class inhibitor of the KRAS p.G12C mutation, showed encouraging activity against advanced NSCLC and other solid tumors.
Among patients with NSCLC, 19 (32.2%) of 59 had a confirmed objective response to sotorasib monotherapy, and 52 (88.1%) had disease control, reported David S. Hong, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“Sotorasib also demonstrated durable disease control in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Hong.
He presented secondary efficacy endpoint results from the trial in an online presentation during the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial met its primary endpoint of safety of sotorasib, with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatal adverse events, and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in less than 20% of patients.
“The safety profile is more favorable than that of other targeted agents, and I think the reason why you have a quite safe compound here is that sotorasib is very specific in its binding to KRAS G12C, and KRAS G12C is only present in the tumor,” coinvestigator Marwan G. Fakih, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. Fakih was co–lead author of the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
A real “triumph”
Sotorasib is “a triumph of drug discovery,” commented Colin Lindsay, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant.
“We know that KRAS, over many years, over 3 decades, has been very difficult to target,” he said.
“The early development of KRAS G12C–targeted agents is just the beginning, lending hope that the ability to target not only other KRAS mutations but also other targets previously thought to be undruggable may be within reach,” write Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, from the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold, PhD, from the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial.
The KRAS, which stands for Kristen rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, p.G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form. The mutation has been identified in approximately 13% of NSCLC tumors, in 1% to 7% of colorectal cancers, and in other solid tumors.
But the mutation has been considered too difficult to target because of KRAS’ strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate (GTP), an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug binding sites.
Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form, Dr. Fakih explained.
Study details
The CodeBreaK 100 investigators enrolled patients with 13 different locally advanced or metastatic solid tumor types, all bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation.
The trial began with a dose-escalation phase, with two to four patients per cohort assigned to receive daily oral sotorasib at doses of 180, 360, 720, or 960 mg. The 960 mg dose was selected for expansion cohorts and for planned phase 2 studies, based on the safety profile and the lack of dose-limiting toxicities.
Hong and colleagues reported results for 129 patients treated in the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts, including 59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer and 28 with other tumor types, but focused primarily on patients with NSCLC.
After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, 59 patients with NSCLC had been treated, 3 at the 180 mg dose, 16 at 360 mg, 6 at 720 mg, and 34 at 960 mg. At the time of data cutoff in June of this year, 14 patients were still on treatment and 45 had discontinued, either from disease progression (35 patients), death (5), patient request (4) or adverse events (1).
As noted, there were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatalities reported.
Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 18.6% of patients. The only grade 4 treatment-related event was diarrhea, in one patient. Grade 3 events included elevated liver transaminases in nine patients, increased alkaline phosphatase in two, anemia in one, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase levels, decreased lymphocyte count, hepatitis, and hyponatremia in one patient each.
Dr. Fakih said that, given sotorasib’s high degree of specificity, it’s unclear what might be causing the observed adverse events.
Responses at all dose levels
The confirmed partial response rate was 32.2% for patients with NSCLC treated at all dose levels, and 35.3% for patients who received the 960 mg dose.
Among all NSCLC patients, and all treated at the highest 960-mg dose level, the stable disease rates were 55.9%. The respective disease control rates were 88.1% and 91.2%.
Tumor reductions occurred across all dose levels in patients with NSCLC. The median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.
Hong reported results for one patient, a 59-year-old man with the mutation who had experienced disease progression on five prior therapies including targeted agents, chemotherapy, and a checkpoint inhibitor, and had gamma-knife surgery for brain lesions.
This patient had a complete response in target lesions and a partial response overall, which included shrinkage of central nervous system metastases. He recently had progression in non-target lesions, after 1.5 years in response, Dr. Hong said.
The median duration of response was 10.9 months for patients with partial responses and 4 months for patients with stable disease.
Hong noted that response to sotorasib was seen across a range of co-mutational profiles, including several patients with four mutations in addition to KRAS p.G12C.
Other tumors, possible combinations
Among 42 patients with colorectal cancers bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation, 3 (7.1%) had a partial response. There were also partial responses seen in one patient each with melanoma and with appendiceal, endometrial, and pancreatic tumors.
“Overall, the results of this trial are very encouraging, showing the first step in ‘drugging the undruggable,’ ” Dr. LoRusso and Dr. Sebolt-Leopold wrote in their editorial.
They suggested that therapy with sotorasib may be improved by combining it with other agents that could target resistance to KRAS inhibition.
“A recent study showed that KRAS G12C colorectal cancer cells have higher basal epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity than NSCLC cells, leading to a rapid rebound in mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase signaling and resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition,” the editorialists wrote. “This observation is consistent with the weaker observed clinical activity of sotorasib in patients with colorectal cancer, a problem that may be addressed by combining it with an EGFR inhibitor [e.g., cetuximab], as seen preclinically.”
“I think this drug is being positioned not only in refractory disease, but we’re hoping to see it move upfront in non–small cell lung cancer, and we’re hoping to improve its efficacy in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Fakih said in an interview.
The study was sponsored by Amgen and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hong disclosed research/grant funding and an advisory/consulting role with Amgen and others. Dr. Fakih disclosed a speaking engagement for Amgen and consulting for and grant support from others. Dr. Lindsay disclosed consulting for Amgen and institutional research funding from the company and others. Dr. LoRusso disclosed fees from multiple companies, not including Amgen. Dr. Sebolt-Leopold disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESMO 2020
Lorlatinib: Another first-line option for ALK-positive NSCLC?
Lorlatinib also produced a higher overall and intracranial response rate, prolonging progression to CNS disease.
These findings “support the use of lorlatinib as a highly effective first-line therapy for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC,” said Benjamin Solomon, MBBS, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.
“The CROWN study clearly establishes lorlatinib as another option” among other first-line ALK inhibitors, Dr. Solomon said when presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
“We now have multiple options for first-line treatment of patients with ALK-positive lung cancer,” noted study discussant Christine Lovly, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
The question now, she said, is how to choose among these options. The drugs have all bested crizotinib in trials but haven’t gone head to head against one another.
Lorlatinib and CROWN
Lorlatinib is currently approved in the United States to treat ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC that has progressed on crizotinib and at least one other ALK inhibitor. Lorlatinib was granted accelerated approval for this indication based on response rate and duration.
The CROWN study was intended to support the conversion to full approval, according to Pfizer, which is developing both lorlatinib and crizotinib. Pfizer also plans to use the results of CROWN to seek a first-line indication for lorlatinib in NSCLC.
CROWN enrolled 296 patients with stage IIIB/IV ALK-positive NSCLC who had received no prior systemic treatment. Patients with asymptomatic treated or untreated CNS metastases were eligible.
There were 149 patients randomized to lorlatinib at 100 mg daily and 147 randomized to crizotinib at 250 mg twice daily. Five patients in the crizotinib arm were included in the analysis but were not treated, Dr. Solomon said.
The median age was 61 years in the lorlatinib arm and 56 years in the crizotinib arm. Nearly all patients were White (48% in the lorlatinib arm and 49% in the crizotinib arm) or Asian (44% in both arms). A majority of patients were women (56% in the lorlatinib arm and 62% in the crizotinib arm), and more than half said they never smoked (54% in the lorlatinib arm and 64% in the crizotinib arm).
Response and PFS
According to blinded independent central review, the objective response rate was 76% with lorlatinib (113/149) and 58% with crizotinib (85/147). There were four complete responses with lorlatinib and none with crizotinib.
Among patients who had measurable or nonmeasurable brain metastases at baseline, the intracranial ORR was 66% with lorlatinib (25/38) and 20% (8/40) with crizotinib. In patients with only measurable brain metastases at baseline, the intracranial ORR was 82% with lorlatinib (14/17) and 23% with crizotinib (3/13).
The 12-month PFS rate was 78% in the lorlatinib arm and 39% in the crizotinib arm. The median PFS was 9.3 months in the crizotinib arm but was not reached in the lorlatinib arm, which “corresponded to a 72% reduction in the risk of death or progression [hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .001],” Dr. Solomon said.
“[T]he PFS for alectinib in the first line is approximately 3 years,” Dr. Lovly noted. “We anxiously await additional data for lorlatinib to see how long the PFS will be.”
The median time to intracranial progression was 16.6 months in the crizotinib arm but was not reached in the lorlatinib arm (HR, 0.07; P < .001).
“These data indicate the ability of lorlatinib not only to delay the progression of existing brain metastases, but also to prevent the development of new brain metastases,” Dr. Solomon said.
Dr. Lovly noted that the efficacy of lorlatinib in the brain is “quite compelling,” but other ALK inhibitors have demonstrated similar results.
As for overall survival, the data are still immature. The median overall survival was not reached with lorlatinib or crizotinib (HR, 0.72).
Toxicity
Dr. Solomon noted that lorlatinib “does have a different toxicity profile, compared to other ALK inhibitors.” Specifically, lorlatinib is associated with hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia, which have not been seen with other ALK inhibitors.
Lorlatinib is also associated with neurocognitive problems, including inattention, memory impairment, and mild confusion. Mood effects include emotional lability – “someone watching a movie might burst into tears when they wouldn’t have otherwise,” Dr. Solomon said – as well as anxiety and depression.
“So it’s important to tell not just the patient but their family about these things so that they identify when [the events] happen,” Dr. Solomon said. “That’s key because [the events are] completely reversible when you stop the drug. With dose interruption, those effects will resolve.”
Other adverse events that were more common with lorlatinib (a 10% or greater difference in frequency from crizotinib) included edema, weight gain, and peripheral neuropathy. Diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, vision disorders, constipation, and increased liver enzymes were more common with crizotinib. Grade 3-4 adverse events led to discontinuation in fewer than 10% of patients in each arm.
The study was funded by Pfizer, and the investigators included employees. Dr. Solomon is an adviser for Pfizer and other companies, and Dr. Lovly’s industry ties included being both an advisor and speaker for Pfizer.
SOURCE: Solomon B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA2.
Lorlatinib also produced a higher overall and intracranial response rate, prolonging progression to CNS disease.
These findings “support the use of lorlatinib as a highly effective first-line therapy for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC,” said Benjamin Solomon, MBBS, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.
“The CROWN study clearly establishes lorlatinib as another option” among other first-line ALK inhibitors, Dr. Solomon said when presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
“We now have multiple options for first-line treatment of patients with ALK-positive lung cancer,” noted study discussant Christine Lovly, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
The question now, she said, is how to choose among these options. The drugs have all bested crizotinib in trials but haven’t gone head to head against one another.
Lorlatinib and CROWN
Lorlatinib is currently approved in the United States to treat ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC that has progressed on crizotinib and at least one other ALK inhibitor. Lorlatinib was granted accelerated approval for this indication based on response rate and duration.
The CROWN study was intended to support the conversion to full approval, according to Pfizer, which is developing both lorlatinib and crizotinib. Pfizer also plans to use the results of CROWN to seek a first-line indication for lorlatinib in NSCLC.
CROWN enrolled 296 patients with stage IIIB/IV ALK-positive NSCLC who had received no prior systemic treatment. Patients with asymptomatic treated or untreated CNS metastases were eligible.
There were 149 patients randomized to lorlatinib at 100 mg daily and 147 randomized to crizotinib at 250 mg twice daily. Five patients in the crizotinib arm were included in the analysis but were not treated, Dr. Solomon said.
The median age was 61 years in the lorlatinib arm and 56 years in the crizotinib arm. Nearly all patients were White (48% in the lorlatinib arm and 49% in the crizotinib arm) or Asian (44% in both arms). A majority of patients were women (56% in the lorlatinib arm and 62% in the crizotinib arm), and more than half said they never smoked (54% in the lorlatinib arm and 64% in the crizotinib arm).
Response and PFS
According to blinded independent central review, the objective response rate was 76% with lorlatinib (113/149) and 58% with crizotinib (85/147). There were four complete responses with lorlatinib and none with crizotinib.
Among patients who had measurable or nonmeasurable brain metastases at baseline, the intracranial ORR was 66% with lorlatinib (25/38) and 20% (8/40) with crizotinib. In patients with only measurable brain metastases at baseline, the intracranial ORR was 82% with lorlatinib (14/17) and 23% with crizotinib (3/13).
The 12-month PFS rate was 78% in the lorlatinib arm and 39% in the crizotinib arm. The median PFS was 9.3 months in the crizotinib arm but was not reached in the lorlatinib arm, which “corresponded to a 72% reduction in the risk of death or progression [hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .001],” Dr. Solomon said.
“[T]he PFS for alectinib in the first line is approximately 3 years,” Dr. Lovly noted. “We anxiously await additional data for lorlatinib to see how long the PFS will be.”
The median time to intracranial progression was 16.6 months in the crizotinib arm but was not reached in the lorlatinib arm (HR, 0.07; P < .001).
“These data indicate the ability of lorlatinib not only to delay the progression of existing brain metastases, but also to prevent the development of new brain metastases,” Dr. Solomon said.
Dr. Lovly noted that the efficacy of lorlatinib in the brain is “quite compelling,” but other ALK inhibitors have demonstrated similar results.
As for overall survival, the data are still immature. The median overall survival was not reached with lorlatinib or crizotinib (HR, 0.72).
Toxicity
Dr. Solomon noted that lorlatinib “does have a different toxicity profile, compared to other ALK inhibitors.” Specifically, lorlatinib is associated with hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia, which have not been seen with other ALK inhibitors.
Lorlatinib is also associated with neurocognitive problems, including inattention, memory impairment, and mild confusion. Mood effects include emotional lability – “someone watching a movie might burst into tears when they wouldn’t have otherwise,” Dr. Solomon said – as well as anxiety and depression.
“So it’s important to tell not just the patient but their family about these things so that they identify when [the events] happen,” Dr. Solomon said. “That’s key because [the events are] completely reversible when you stop the drug. With dose interruption, those effects will resolve.”
Other adverse events that were more common with lorlatinib (a 10% or greater difference in frequency from crizotinib) included edema, weight gain, and peripheral neuropathy. Diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, vision disorders, constipation, and increased liver enzymes were more common with crizotinib. Grade 3-4 adverse events led to discontinuation in fewer than 10% of patients in each arm.
The study was funded by Pfizer, and the investigators included employees. Dr. Solomon is an adviser for Pfizer and other companies, and Dr. Lovly’s industry ties included being both an advisor and speaker for Pfizer.
SOURCE: Solomon B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA2.
Lorlatinib also produced a higher overall and intracranial response rate, prolonging progression to CNS disease.
These findings “support the use of lorlatinib as a highly effective first-line therapy for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC,” said Benjamin Solomon, MBBS, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.
“The CROWN study clearly establishes lorlatinib as another option” among other first-line ALK inhibitors, Dr. Solomon said when presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
“We now have multiple options for first-line treatment of patients with ALK-positive lung cancer,” noted study discussant Christine Lovly, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
The question now, she said, is how to choose among these options. The drugs have all bested crizotinib in trials but haven’t gone head to head against one another.
Lorlatinib and CROWN
Lorlatinib is currently approved in the United States to treat ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC that has progressed on crizotinib and at least one other ALK inhibitor. Lorlatinib was granted accelerated approval for this indication based on response rate and duration.
The CROWN study was intended to support the conversion to full approval, according to Pfizer, which is developing both lorlatinib and crizotinib. Pfizer also plans to use the results of CROWN to seek a first-line indication for lorlatinib in NSCLC.
CROWN enrolled 296 patients with stage IIIB/IV ALK-positive NSCLC who had received no prior systemic treatment. Patients with asymptomatic treated or untreated CNS metastases were eligible.
There were 149 patients randomized to lorlatinib at 100 mg daily and 147 randomized to crizotinib at 250 mg twice daily. Five patients in the crizotinib arm were included in the analysis but were not treated, Dr. Solomon said.
The median age was 61 years in the lorlatinib arm and 56 years in the crizotinib arm. Nearly all patients were White (48% in the lorlatinib arm and 49% in the crizotinib arm) or Asian (44% in both arms). A majority of patients were women (56% in the lorlatinib arm and 62% in the crizotinib arm), and more than half said they never smoked (54% in the lorlatinib arm and 64% in the crizotinib arm).
Response and PFS
According to blinded independent central review, the objective response rate was 76% with lorlatinib (113/149) and 58% with crizotinib (85/147). There were four complete responses with lorlatinib and none with crizotinib.
Among patients who had measurable or nonmeasurable brain metastases at baseline, the intracranial ORR was 66% with lorlatinib (25/38) and 20% (8/40) with crizotinib. In patients with only measurable brain metastases at baseline, the intracranial ORR was 82% with lorlatinib (14/17) and 23% with crizotinib (3/13).
The 12-month PFS rate was 78% in the lorlatinib arm and 39% in the crizotinib arm. The median PFS was 9.3 months in the crizotinib arm but was not reached in the lorlatinib arm, which “corresponded to a 72% reduction in the risk of death or progression [hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .001],” Dr. Solomon said.
“[T]he PFS for alectinib in the first line is approximately 3 years,” Dr. Lovly noted. “We anxiously await additional data for lorlatinib to see how long the PFS will be.”
The median time to intracranial progression was 16.6 months in the crizotinib arm but was not reached in the lorlatinib arm (HR, 0.07; P < .001).
“These data indicate the ability of lorlatinib not only to delay the progression of existing brain metastases, but also to prevent the development of new brain metastases,” Dr. Solomon said.
Dr. Lovly noted that the efficacy of lorlatinib in the brain is “quite compelling,” but other ALK inhibitors have demonstrated similar results.
As for overall survival, the data are still immature. The median overall survival was not reached with lorlatinib or crizotinib (HR, 0.72).
Toxicity
Dr. Solomon noted that lorlatinib “does have a different toxicity profile, compared to other ALK inhibitors.” Specifically, lorlatinib is associated with hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia, which have not been seen with other ALK inhibitors.
Lorlatinib is also associated with neurocognitive problems, including inattention, memory impairment, and mild confusion. Mood effects include emotional lability – “someone watching a movie might burst into tears when they wouldn’t have otherwise,” Dr. Solomon said – as well as anxiety and depression.
“So it’s important to tell not just the patient but their family about these things so that they identify when [the events] happen,” Dr. Solomon said. “That’s key because [the events are] completely reversible when you stop the drug. With dose interruption, those effects will resolve.”
Other adverse events that were more common with lorlatinib (a 10% or greater difference in frequency from crizotinib) included edema, weight gain, and peripheral neuropathy. Diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, vision disorders, constipation, and increased liver enzymes were more common with crizotinib. Grade 3-4 adverse events led to discontinuation in fewer than 10% of patients in each arm.
The study was funded by Pfizer, and the investigators included employees. Dr. Solomon is an adviser for Pfizer and other companies, and Dr. Lovly’s industry ties included being both an advisor and speaker for Pfizer.
SOURCE: Solomon B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA2.
FROM ESMO 2020
No benefit with postoperative radiotherapy in stage IIIAN2 NSCLC
In patients with completely resected non–small cell lung cancer and proven N2 disease, postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) provided no significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 years, according to a phase 3 trial.
Investigator Cécile Le Péchoux, MD, a radiation oncologist from Institut Gustave Roussy in Paris, presented the results of the Lung ART trial at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The results resolve what ESMO commentator Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, of Medical University of Gdansk (Poland), called “perhaps the longest ongoing debate in thoracic oncology,” on whether or not to irradiate patients with mediastinal lymph node involvement after surgery.
Dr. Dziadziuszko noted that some past studies have suggested PORT may provide improved local control and a survival benefit, but other studies have shown no survival benefit and evidence of harm with PORT.
“So here is an academic study with the answer,” Dr. Dziadziuszko said.
Study details
The intention-to-treat population of Lung ART included 252 patients randomized to receive 5.5 weeks of PORT (54 Gy) and 249 patients randomized to the control arm without PORT.
The patients’ median age was 61 years, 66% were men, and adenocarcinoma was the predominant histology (76% of patients in the control arm and 70% in the PORT arm). All patients had received adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
The median follow-up was 4.8 years. The 3-year DFS rate was 47.1% in the PORT arm and 43.8% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.07, P = .16). The median DFS was 30.5 months with PORT and 22.8 months in the control group. As for DFS components, the rate for death as a first event was 14.6% in the PORT arm and 5.3% among controls.
The mediastinal relapse rate was higher among controls, at 46.1% versus 25.0% with PORT.
The 3-year overall survival rate was 66.5% among patients in the PORT arm and 68.5% in the control arm.
At least one grade 3-4 toxicity was reported in 23.7% of the PORT group and in 15.0% of controls. The grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary toxicity rate of 10.8% in the PORT arm and 4.9% in the control arm needs to be further explored, Dr. Le Péchoux said.
Applying the results to practice
In response to a question as to which patients might benefit from PORT, Dr. Le Péchoux pointed out that, among patients who have nodes in the inferior part of the mediastinum closer to the heart, PORT might be more toxic.
“For the moment, we did not see anything that would give us a clue,” Dr. Le Péchoux said. “We have a lot to investigate.”
Further analyses looking at patterns of failure, predictive factors of efficacy and toxicity, quality of radiotherapy, and quality of surgery are planned, she added.
Dr. Le Péchoux concluded: “Conformal PORT cannot be recommended as standard of care in all completely resected stage IIIAN2 [non–small cell lung cancer] patients.”
Dr. Dziadziuszko commented further: “For my practice, this is a clear message that routine PORT should not be used in these patients. We are looking for more effective systemic therapies.”
He added that “over 50% 5-year survival in these patients is a great result, and is made possible by modern staging and modern surgery.”
The Lung ART study was sponsored by Gustave Roussy and supported by the French National Cancer Institute, French Health Ministry, and a Cancer Research UK grant. Dr. Le Péchoux and Dr. Dziadziuszko reported no conflicts of interest related to the presentation.
SOURCE: Le Péchoux C et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA3_PR.
In patients with completely resected non–small cell lung cancer and proven N2 disease, postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) provided no significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 years, according to a phase 3 trial.
Investigator Cécile Le Péchoux, MD, a radiation oncologist from Institut Gustave Roussy in Paris, presented the results of the Lung ART trial at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The results resolve what ESMO commentator Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, of Medical University of Gdansk (Poland), called “perhaps the longest ongoing debate in thoracic oncology,” on whether or not to irradiate patients with mediastinal lymph node involvement after surgery.
Dr. Dziadziuszko noted that some past studies have suggested PORT may provide improved local control and a survival benefit, but other studies have shown no survival benefit and evidence of harm with PORT.
“So here is an academic study with the answer,” Dr. Dziadziuszko said.
Study details
The intention-to-treat population of Lung ART included 252 patients randomized to receive 5.5 weeks of PORT (54 Gy) and 249 patients randomized to the control arm without PORT.
The patients’ median age was 61 years, 66% were men, and adenocarcinoma was the predominant histology (76% of patients in the control arm and 70% in the PORT arm). All patients had received adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
The median follow-up was 4.8 years. The 3-year DFS rate was 47.1% in the PORT arm and 43.8% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.07, P = .16). The median DFS was 30.5 months with PORT and 22.8 months in the control group. As for DFS components, the rate for death as a first event was 14.6% in the PORT arm and 5.3% among controls.
The mediastinal relapse rate was higher among controls, at 46.1% versus 25.0% with PORT.
The 3-year overall survival rate was 66.5% among patients in the PORT arm and 68.5% in the control arm.
At least one grade 3-4 toxicity was reported in 23.7% of the PORT group and in 15.0% of controls. The grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary toxicity rate of 10.8% in the PORT arm and 4.9% in the control arm needs to be further explored, Dr. Le Péchoux said.
Applying the results to practice
In response to a question as to which patients might benefit from PORT, Dr. Le Péchoux pointed out that, among patients who have nodes in the inferior part of the mediastinum closer to the heart, PORT might be more toxic.
“For the moment, we did not see anything that would give us a clue,” Dr. Le Péchoux said. “We have a lot to investigate.”
Further analyses looking at patterns of failure, predictive factors of efficacy and toxicity, quality of radiotherapy, and quality of surgery are planned, she added.
Dr. Le Péchoux concluded: “Conformal PORT cannot be recommended as standard of care in all completely resected stage IIIAN2 [non–small cell lung cancer] patients.”
Dr. Dziadziuszko commented further: “For my practice, this is a clear message that routine PORT should not be used in these patients. We are looking for more effective systemic therapies.”
He added that “over 50% 5-year survival in these patients is a great result, and is made possible by modern staging and modern surgery.”
The Lung ART study was sponsored by Gustave Roussy and supported by the French National Cancer Institute, French Health Ministry, and a Cancer Research UK grant. Dr. Le Péchoux and Dr. Dziadziuszko reported no conflicts of interest related to the presentation.
SOURCE: Le Péchoux C et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA3_PR.
In patients with completely resected non–small cell lung cancer and proven N2 disease, postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) provided no significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 years, according to a phase 3 trial.
Investigator Cécile Le Péchoux, MD, a radiation oncologist from Institut Gustave Roussy in Paris, presented the results of the Lung ART trial at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The results resolve what ESMO commentator Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, of Medical University of Gdansk (Poland), called “perhaps the longest ongoing debate in thoracic oncology,” on whether or not to irradiate patients with mediastinal lymph node involvement after surgery.
Dr. Dziadziuszko noted that some past studies have suggested PORT may provide improved local control and a survival benefit, but other studies have shown no survival benefit and evidence of harm with PORT.
“So here is an academic study with the answer,” Dr. Dziadziuszko said.
Study details
The intention-to-treat population of Lung ART included 252 patients randomized to receive 5.5 weeks of PORT (54 Gy) and 249 patients randomized to the control arm without PORT.
The patients’ median age was 61 years, 66% were men, and adenocarcinoma was the predominant histology (76% of patients in the control arm and 70% in the PORT arm). All patients had received adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
The median follow-up was 4.8 years. The 3-year DFS rate was 47.1% in the PORT arm and 43.8% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.07, P = .16). The median DFS was 30.5 months with PORT and 22.8 months in the control group. As for DFS components, the rate for death as a first event was 14.6% in the PORT arm and 5.3% among controls.
The mediastinal relapse rate was higher among controls, at 46.1% versus 25.0% with PORT.
The 3-year overall survival rate was 66.5% among patients in the PORT arm and 68.5% in the control arm.
At least one grade 3-4 toxicity was reported in 23.7% of the PORT group and in 15.0% of controls. The grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary toxicity rate of 10.8% in the PORT arm and 4.9% in the control arm needs to be further explored, Dr. Le Péchoux said.
Applying the results to practice
In response to a question as to which patients might benefit from PORT, Dr. Le Péchoux pointed out that, among patients who have nodes in the inferior part of the mediastinum closer to the heart, PORT might be more toxic.
“For the moment, we did not see anything that would give us a clue,” Dr. Le Péchoux said. “We have a lot to investigate.”
Further analyses looking at patterns of failure, predictive factors of efficacy and toxicity, quality of radiotherapy, and quality of surgery are planned, she added.
Dr. Le Péchoux concluded: “Conformal PORT cannot be recommended as standard of care in all completely resected stage IIIAN2 [non–small cell lung cancer] patients.”
Dr. Dziadziuszko commented further: “For my practice, this is a clear message that routine PORT should not be used in these patients. We are looking for more effective systemic therapies.”
He added that “over 50% 5-year survival in these patients is a great result, and is made possible by modern staging and modern surgery.”
The Lung ART study was sponsored by Gustave Roussy and supported by the French National Cancer Institute, French Health Ministry, and a Cancer Research UK grant. Dr. Le Péchoux and Dr. Dziadziuszko reported no conflicts of interest related to the presentation.
SOURCE: Le Péchoux C et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA3_PR.
FROM ESMO 2020
Survey quantifies COVID-19’s impact on oncology
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
FROM ESMO 2020
COVID-19 prompts ‘democratization’ of cancer trials
The pandemic has taught researchers how to decentralize trials, which should not only improve patient satisfaction but increase trial accrual by providing access to typically underserved populations, Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.
Dr. LoRusso was one of six panelists who participated in a forum about changes to cancer trials that were prompted by the pandemic. The forum was moderated by Keith T. Flaherty, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Dr. Flaherty asked the panelists to explain adjustments their organizations have made in response to the pandemic, discuss accomplishments, and speculate on future challenges and priorities.
Trial, administrative, and patient-care modifications
COVID-19 put some cancer trials on hold. For others, the pandemic forced sponsors and study chairs to reduce trial complexity and identify nonessential aspects of the studies, according to panelist José Baselga, MD, PhD, of AstraZeneca.
Specifically, exploratory objectives were subjugated to patient safety and a focus on the primary endpoints of each trial.
Once the critical data were identified, study chairs were asked to determine whether data could be obtained through technologies that could substitute for face-to-face contact between patients and staff – for example, patient-reported outcome tools and at-home digital monitoring.
Modifications prompted by the pandemic include the following:
- On-site auditing was suspended.
- Oral investigational agents were shipped directly to patients.
- “Remote” informed consent (telephone or video consenting) was permitted.
- Local providers could perform study-related services, with oversight by the research site.
- Minor deviations from the written protocols were allowed, provided the deviations did not affect patient care or data integrity.
“Obviously, the pandemic has been horrible, but what it has allowed us to do, as investigators in the clinical research landscape, … is to change our focus somewhat and realize, first and foremost, the patient is at the center of this,” Dr. LoRusso said.
Operational accomplishments and benefits
The pandemic caused a 40% decline in accrual to studies supported by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from mid-March to early April, according to James H. Doroshow, MD, of NCI.
However, after modifications to administrative and regulatory procedures, accrual to NCTN trials recovered to approximately 80% of prepandemic levels, Dr. Doroshow said.
The pandemic prompted investigators to leverage tools and technology they had not previously used frequently or at all, the panelists pointed out.
Investigators discovered perforce that telehealth could be used for almost all trial-related assessments. In lieu of physical examination, patients could send pictures of rashes and use electronic devices to monitor blood sugar values and vital signs.
Digital radiographic studies were performed at sites that were most convenient for patients, downloaded, and reinterpreted at the study institution. Visiting nurses and neighborhood laboratories enabled less-frequent in-person visits for assessments.
These adjustments have been particularly important for geographically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, the panelists said.
Overall, there was agreement among the panelists that shared values and trust among regulatory authorities, sponsors, investigators, and clinicians were impressive in their urgency, sincerity, and patient centricity.
“This pandemic … has forced us to think differently and be nimble and creative to our approach to maintaining our overriding goals while at the same time bringing these innovative therapies forward for patients with cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases as quickly as possible,” said panelist Kristen M. Hege, MD, of Bristol-Myers Squibb.
In fact, Dr. Hege noted, some cancer-related therapies (e.g., BTK inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents) were “repurposed” rapidly and tested against COVID-related complications.
Streamlining trial regulatory processes
In addition to changing ongoing trials, the pandemic has affected how new research projects are launched.
One new study that came together quickly in response to the pandemic is the NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS). NCCAPS is a natural history study with biospecimens and an imaging library. It was approved in just 5 weeks and is active in 650 sites, with “gangbusters” accrual, Dr. Doroshow said.
The rapidness of NCCAPS’ design and implementation should prompt the revision of previously accepted timelines for trial activation and lead to streamlined future processes.
Another project that was launched quickly in response to the pandemic is the COVID-19 evidence accelerator, according to Paul G. Kluetz, MD, of the Food and Drug Administration.
The COVID-19 evidence accelerator integrates real-world evidence into a database to provide investigators and health systems with the ability to gather information, design rapid turnaround queries, and share results. The evidence accelerator can provide study chairs with information that may have relevance to the safety of participants in clinical trials.
Future directions and challenges
The panelists agreed that pandemic-related modifications in processes will not only accelerate trial approval and activation but should facilitate higher study accrual, increase the diversity of protocol participants, and decrease the costs associated with clinical trial conduct.
With that in mind, the NCI is planning randomized clinical trials in which “process A” is compared with “process B,” Dr. Doroshow said. The goal is to determine which modifications are most likely to make trials available to patients without compromising data integrity or patient safety.
“How much less data do you need to have an outcome that will be similar?” Dr. Doroshow asked. “How many fewer visits, how many fewer tests, how much can you save? Physicians, clinical trialists, all of us respond to data, and if you get the same outcome at a third of the cost, then everybody benefits.”
Nonetheless, we will need to be vigilant for unintended vulnerabilities from well-intended efforts, according to Dr. Kluetz. Study chairs, sponsors, and regulatory agencies will need to be attentive to whether there are important differences in scan quality or interpretation, missing data that influence trial outcomes, and so on.
Dr. Hege pointed out that differences among data sources may be less important when treatments generate large effects but may be vitally important when the relative differences among treatments are small.
On a practical level, decentralizing clinical research may negatively impact the finances of tertiary care centers, which could threaten the required infrastructure for clinical trials, a few panelists noted.
The relative balance of NCI-, industry-, and investigator-initiated trials may require adjustment so that research income is adequate to maintain the costs associated with cancer clinical trials.
Shared goals and democratization
The pandemic has required all stakeholders in clinical research to rely on relationships of trust and shared goals, said Caroline Robert, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.
Dr. Kluetz summarized those goals as improving trial efficiencies, decreasing patient burden, decentralizing trials, and maintaining trial integrity.
A decentralized clinical trials operational model could lead to better generalizability of study outcomes, normalization of life for patients on studies, and lower costs of trial conduct. As such, decentralization would promote democratization.
Coupled with ongoing efforts to reduce eligibility criteria in cancer trials, the pandemic has brought operational solutions that should be perpetuated and has reminded us of the interlocking and mutually supportive relationships on which clinical research success depends.
Dr. Doroshow and Dr. Kluetz disclosed no conflicts of interest. All other panelists disclosed financial relationships, including employment, with a range of companies.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Regulatory and Operational Implications of Cancer Clinical Trial Changes During COVID-19.
The pandemic has taught researchers how to decentralize trials, which should not only improve patient satisfaction but increase trial accrual by providing access to typically underserved populations, Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.
Dr. LoRusso was one of six panelists who participated in a forum about changes to cancer trials that were prompted by the pandemic. The forum was moderated by Keith T. Flaherty, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Dr. Flaherty asked the panelists to explain adjustments their organizations have made in response to the pandemic, discuss accomplishments, and speculate on future challenges and priorities.
Trial, administrative, and patient-care modifications
COVID-19 put some cancer trials on hold. For others, the pandemic forced sponsors and study chairs to reduce trial complexity and identify nonessential aspects of the studies, according to panelist José Baselga, MD, PhD, of AstraZeneca.
Specifically, exploratory objectives were subjugated to patient safety and a focus on the primary endpoints of each trial.
Once the critical data were identified, study chairs were asked to determine whether data could be obtained through technologies that could substitute for face-to-face contact between patients and staff – for example, patient-reported outcome tools and at-home digital monitoring.
Modifications prompted by the pandemic include the following:
- On-site auditing was suspended.
- Oral investigational agents were shipped directly to patients.
- “Remote” informed consent (telephone or video consenting) was permitted.
- Local providers could perform study-related services, with oversight by the research site.
- Minor deviations from the written protocols were allowed, provided the deviations did not affect patient care or data integrity.
“Obviously, the pandemic has been horrible, but what it has allowed us to do, as investigators in the clinical research landscape, … is to change our focus somewhat and realize, first and foremost, the patient is at the center of this,” Dr. LoRusso said.
Operational accomplishments and benefits
The pandemic caused a 40% decline in accrual to studies supported by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from mid-March to early April, according to James H. Doroshow, MD, of NCI.
However, after modifications to administrative and regulatory procedures, accrual to NCTN trials recovered to approximately 80% of prepandemic levels, Dr. Doroshow said.
The pandemic prompted investigators to leverage tools and technology they had not previously used frequently or at all, the panelists pointed out.
Investigators discovered perforce that telehealth could be used for almost all trial-related assessments. In lieu of physical examination, patients could send pictures of rashes and use electronic devices to monitor blood sugar values and vital signs.
Digital radiographic studies were performed at sites that were most convenient for patients, downloaded, and reinterpreted at the study institution. Visiting nurses and neighborhood laboratories enabled less-frequent in-person visits for assessments.
These adjustments have been particularly important for geographically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, the panelists said.
Overall, there was agreement among the panelists that shared values and trust among regulatory authorities, sponsors, investigators, and clinicians were impressive in their urgency, sincerity, and patient centricity.
“This pandemic … has forced us to think differently and be nimble and creative to our approach to maintaining our overriding goals while at the same time bringing these innovative therapies forward for patients with cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases as quickly as possible,” said panelist Kristen M. Hege, MD, of Bristol-Myers Squibb.
In fact, Dr. Hege noted, some cancer-related therapies (e.g., BTK inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents) were “repurposed” rapidly and tested against COVID-related complications.
Streamlining trial regulatory processes
In addition to changing ongoing trials, the pandemic has affected how new research projects are launched.
One new study that came together quickly in response to the pandemic is the NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS). NCCAPS is a natural history study with biospecimens and an imaging library. It was approved in just 5 weeks and is active in 650 sites, with “gangbusters” accrual, Dr. Doroshow said.
The rapidness of NCCAPS’ design and implementation should prompt the revision of previously accepted timelines for trial activation and lead to streamlined future processes.
Another project that was launched quickly in response to the pandemic is the COVID-19 evidence accelerator, according to Paul G. Kluetz, MD, of the Food and Drug Administration.
The COVID-19 evidence accelerator integrates real-world evidence into a database to provide investigators and health systems with the ability to gather information, design rapid turnaround queries, and share results. The evidence accelerator can provide study chairs with information that may have relevance to the safety of participants in clinical trials.
Future directions and challenges
The panelists agreed that pandemic-related modifications in processes will not only accelerate trial approval and activation but should facilitate higher study accrual, increase the diversity of protocol participants, and decrease the costs associated with clinical trial conduct.
With that in mind, the NCI is planning randomized clinical trials in which “process A” is compared with “process B,” Dr. Doroshow said. The goal is to determine which modifications are most likely to make trials available to patients without compromising data integrity or patient safety.
“How much less data do you need to have an outcome that will be similar?” Dr. Doroshow asked. “How many fewer visits, how many fewer tests, how much can you save? Physicians, clinical trialists, all of us respond to data, and if you get the same outcome at a third of the cost, then everybody benefits.”
Nonetheless, we will need to be vigilant for unintended vulnerabilities from well-intended efforts, according to Dr. Kluetz. Study chairs, sponsors, and regulatory agencies will need to be attentive to whether there are important differences in scan quality or interpretation, missing data that influence trial outcomes, and so on.
Dr. Hege pointed out that differences among data sources may be less important when treatments generate large effects but may be vitally important when the relative differences among treatments are small.
On a practical level, decentralizing clinical research may negatively impact the finances of tertiary care centers, which could threaten the required infrastructure for clinical trials, a few panelists noted.
The relative balance of NCI-, industry-, and investigator-initiated trials may require adjustment so that research income is adequate to maintain the costs associated with cancer clinical trials.
Shared goals and democratization
The pandemic has required all stakeholders in clinical research to rely on relationships of trust and shared goals, said Caroline Robert, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.
Dr. Kluetz summarized those goals as improving trial efficiencies, decreasing patient burden, decentralizing trials, and maintaining trial integrity.
A decentralized clinical trials operational model could lead to better generalizability of study outcomes, normalization of life for patients on studies, and lower costs of trial conduct. As such, decentralization would promote democratization.
Coupled with ongoing efforts to reduce eligibility criteria in cancer trials, the pandemic has brought operational solutions that should be perpetuated and has reminded us of the interlocking and mutually supportive relationships on which clinical research success depends.
Dr. Doroshow and Dr. Kluetz disclosed no conflicts of interest. All other panelists disclosed financial relationships, including employment, with a range of companies.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Regulatory and Operational Implications of Cancer Clinical Trial Changes During COVID-19.
The pandemic has taught researchers how to decentralize trials, which should not only improve patient satisfaction but increase trial accrual by providing access to typically underserved populations, Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.
Dr. LoRusso was one of six panelists who participated in a forum about changes to cancer trials that were prompted by the pandemic. The forum was moderated by Keith T. Flaherty, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Dr. Flaherty asked the panelists to explain adjustments their organizations have made in response to the pandemic, discuss accomplishments, and speculate on future challenges and priorities.
Trial, administrative, and patient-care modifications
COVID-19 put some cancer trials on hold. For others, the pandemic forced sponsors and study chairs to reduce trial complexity and identify nonessential aspects of the studies, according to panelist José Baselga, MD, PhD, of AstraZeneca.
Specifically, exploratory objectives were subjugated to patient safety and a focus on the primary endpoints of each trial.
Once the critical data were identified, study chairs were asked to determine whether data could be obtained through technologies that could substitute for face-to-face contact between patients and staff – for example, patient-reported outcome tools and at-home digital monitoring.
Modifications prompted by the pandemic include the following:
- On-site auditing was suspended.
- Oral investigational agents were shipped directly to patients.
- “Remote” informed consent (telephone or video consenting) was permitted.
- Local providers could perform study-related services, with oversight by the research site.
- Minor deviations from the written protocols were allowed, provided the deviations did not affect patient care or data integrity.
“Obviously, the pandemic has been horrible, but what it has allowed us to do, as investigators in the clinical research landscape, … is to change our focus somewhat and realize, first and foremost, the patient is at the center of this,” Dr. LoRusso said.
Operational accomplishments and benefits
The pandemic caused a 40% decline in accrual to studies supported by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from mid-March to early April, according to James H. Doroshow, MD, of NCI.
However, after modifications to administrative and regulatory procedures, accrual to NCTN trials recovered to approximately 80% of prepandemic levels, Dr. Doroshow said.
The pandemic prompted investigators to leverage tools and technology they had not previously used frequently or at all, the panelists pointed out.
Investigators discovered perforce that telehealth could be used for almost all trial-related assessments. In lieu of physical examination, patients could send pictures of rashes and use electronic devices to monitor blood sugar values and vital signs.
Digital radiographic studies were performed at sites that were most convenient for patients, downloaded, and reinterpreted at the study institution. Visiting nurses and neighborhood laboratories enabled less-frequent in-person visits for assessments.
These adjustments have been particularly important for geographically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, the panelists said.
Overall, there was agreement among the panelists that shared values and trust among regulatory authorities, sponsors, investigators, and clinicians were impressive in their urgency, sincerity, and patient centricity.
“This pandemic … has forced us to think differently and be nimble and creative to our approach to maintaining our overriding goals while at the same time bringing these innovative therapies forward for patients with cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases as quickly as possible,” said panelist Kristen M. Hege, MD, of Bristol-Myers Squibb.
In fact, Dr. Hege noted, some cancer-related therapies (e.g., BTK inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents) were “repurposed” rapidly and tested against COVID-related complications.
Streamlining trial regulatory processes
In addition to changing ongoing trials, the pandemic has affected how new research projects are launched.
One new study that came together quickly in response to the pandemic is the NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS). NCCAPS is a natural history study with biospecimens and an imaging library. It was approved in just 5 weeks and is active in 650 sites, with “gangbusters” accrual, Dr. Doroshow said.
The rapidness of NCCAPS’ design and implementation should prompt the revision of previously accepted timelines for trial activation and lead to streamlined future processes.
Another project that was launched quickly in response to the pandemic is the COVID-19 evidence accelerator, according to Paul G. Kluetz, MD, of the Food and Drug Administration.
The COVID-19 evidence accelerator integrates real-world evidence into a database to provide investigators and health systems with the ability to gather information, design rapid turnaround queries, and share results. The evidence accelerator can provide study chairs with information that may have relevance to the safety of participants in clinical trials.
Future directions and challenges
The panelists agreed that pandemic-related modifications in processes will not only accelerate trial approval and activation but should facilitate higher study accrual, increase the diversity of protocol participants, and decrease the costs associated with clinical trial conduct.
With that in mind, the NCI is planning randomized clinical trials in which “process A” is compared with “process B,” Dr. Doroshow said. The goal is to determine which modifications are most likely to make trials available to patients without compromising data integrity or patient safety.
“How much less data do you need to have an outcome that will be similar?” Dr. Doroshow asked. “How many fewer visits, how many fewer tests, how much can you save? Physicians, clinical trialists, all of us respond to data, and if you get the same outcome at a third of the cost, then everybody benefits.”
Nonetheless, we will need to be vigilant for unintended vulnerabilities from well-intended efforts, according to Dr. Kluetz. Study chairs, sponsors, and regulatory agencies will need to be attentive to whether there are important differences in scan quality or interpretation, missing data that influence trial outcomes, and so on.
Dr. Hege pointed out that differences among data sources may be less important when treatments generate large effects but may be vitally important when the relative differences among treatments are small.
On a practical level, decentralizing clinical research may negatively impact the finances of tertiary care centers, which could threaten the required infrastructure for clinical trials, a few panelists noted.
The relative balance of NCI-, industry-, and investigator-initiated trials may require adjustment so that research income is adequate to maintain the costs associated with cancer clinical trials.
Shared goals and democratization
The pandemic has required all stakeholders in clinical research to rely on relationships of trust and shared goals, said Caroline Robert, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.
Dr. Kluetz summarized those goals as improving trial efficiencies, decreasing patient burden, decentralizing trials, and maintaining trial integrity.
A decentralized clinical trials operational model could lead to better generalizability of study outcomes, normalization of life for patients on studies, and lower costs of trial conduct. As such, decentralization would promote democratization.
Coupled with ongoing efforts to reduce eligibility criteria in cancer trials, the pandemic has brought operational solutions that should be perpetuated and has reminded us of the interlocking and mutually supportive relationships on which clinical research success depends.
Dr. Doroshow and Dr. Kluetz disclosed no conflicts of interest. All other panelists disclosed financial relationships, including employment, with a range of companies.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Regulatory and Operational Implications of Cancer Clinical Trial Changes During COVID-19.
FROM AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer