User login
New Trials in Leukemia and Lymphoma: Could Your Patient Benefit?
Several clinical trials in leukemia and lymphoma have started enrolling recently. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from taking part?
run by the Center for International Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Research.
The purpose of the study is to test whether cyclophosphamide, which is given to prevent a dreaded complication of stem cell transplantation called graft-versus-host disease, can be safely reduced without increasing infection or reducing protection. All participants will receive cyclophosphamide on days 3 and 4 post transplant. One group will receive a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (25 mg/kg per dose), and the other will be given a usual dose (37.5 mg/kg).
Sites in Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington started recruiting for 190 participants in December 2023. Study centers in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin are also planned. Infection-free survival is the primary endpoint, and overall survival is a secondary measure. Quality of life (QoL) is not recorded. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Adults who are newly diagnosed with this type of cancer and have active disease may wish to consider a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an experimental Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, nemtabrutinib (from Merck Sharp & Dohme), against standard-of-care BTK inhibitors ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and acalabrutinib (Calquence).
BTK inhibitors target B-cell proliferation in B-cell cancers such as CLL/SLL and allow for chemotherapy-free treatment of some hematological malignancies. In this study, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or another reason for discontinuation occurs, participants will take daily oral nemtabrutinib, ibrutinib, or acalabrutinib.
The study opened in December 2023 in Pennsylvania, Washington, Taiwan, Israel, and the United Kingdom seeking 1200 participants. The primary outcomes are objective response rate and progression-free survival. Overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory leukemia with a KMT2A-gene rearrangement (KMT2A-r). Children aged 1 month to younger than 6 years with this diagnosis may be able to join an open-label, nonrandomized, Children’s Oncology Group phase 2 study to determine the most tolerable and/or effective dose of an experimental oral drug called revumenib when added to chemotherapy.
KMT2A-gene alterations are associated with a poor prognosis in leukemia. These alterations cause blood cells to dedifferentiate and start proliferating uncontrollably as leukemia cells. The expression of the damaged KMT2A gene relies on a protein called menin. Revumenib, from Syndax Pharmaceuticals, blocks menin and prevents expression of KMT2A.
Children in the study will receive two different regimens of revumenib in combination with chemotherapy for up to a year, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and will then be followed for up to 5 years. Trial centers in 12 US states opened their doors in January 2024 looking for 78 participants. Toxicities and minimal residual disease are the primary outcomes; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Previously untreated follicular lymphoma or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Adults with one of these types of lymphoma may be eligible for one of three open-label, randomized, phase 3 trials testing odronextamab (from Regeneron). This bispecific antibody is designed to ‘lock together’ CD20 on cancer cells with CD3-expressing cancer-killing T cells. It has shown anti-lymphoma activity in heavily pretreated patients.
Late in 2023, three phase 3 trials turned the spotlight on treatment-naive patients and started recruiting 2115 participants to assess odronextamab in this setting. The trial OLYMPIA-1 will compare odronextamab with standard-of-care rituximab (Rituxan) plus chemotherapy in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-2 will test the drug in combination with chemotherapy, also in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-3 will evaluate odronextamab plus chemotherapy against rituximab and chemotherapy in people with large B-cell lymphoma.
All study drugs, including odronextamab, will be administered by intravenous infusion, and participants will be followed for up to 5 years. Research centers across eight US states and Australia, Czechia, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and Thailand are currently accepting participants for the three trials. The primary outcomes are various measures of toxicity and complete response at 30 months in the follicular lymphoma studies and toxicity and progression-free survival in large B-cell lymphoma. All three trials are measuring overall survival and QoL as secondary endpoints.
Previously untreated stage II, III, or IV follicular lymphoma. Adults with this type of cancer may be eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing whether an experimental therapy called epcoritamab (from AbbVie) improves disease response and is tolerable when added to standard therapy. For up to 120 weeks, one group of participants will receive a combination of intravenous rituximab and oral lenalidomide (Revlimid), while a second group will also receive subcutaneous injections of epcoritamab. Some participants may be offered investigators’ choice of chemotherapy as well.
Sites across Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and Montana started welcoming their 900 participants in February 2024. The primary outcome is complete response at 30 months. Overall survival and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Adults facing one of these clinical scenarios can join an Academic and Community Cancer Research United open label, phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of combining tafasitamab (Monjuvi), lenalidomide, and venetoclax (Venclexta) for such patients.
Frontline therapy does not cure mantle cell lymphoma, and continued relapses are common. In this situation, treatments can include acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, stem cell transplantation, venetoclax, lenalidomide, and rituximab.
In this study, participants will take venetoclax and lenalidomide daily and receive intravenous tafasitamab every 2 weeks after an initial ramp-up period as per clinic standards. Participants will be followed for 5 years after entering the trial. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, began recruiting the planned 100 trial participants in January 2024. The primary outcome is objective response rate; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Several clinical trials in leukemia and lymphoma have started enrolling recently. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from taking part?
run by the Center for International Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Research.
The purpose of the study is to test whether cyclophosphamide, which is given to prevent a dreaded complication of stem cell transplantation called graft-versus-host disease, can be safely reduced without increasing infection or reducing protection. All participants will receive cyclophosphamide on days 3 and 4 post transplant. One group will receive a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (25 mg/kg per dose), and the other will be given a usual dose (37.5 mg/kg).
Sites in Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington started recruiting for 190 participants in December 2023. Study centers in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin are also planned. Infection-free survival is the primary endpoint, and overall survival is a secondary measure. Quality of life (QoL) is not recorded. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Adults who are newly diagnosed with this type of cancer and have active disease may wish to consider a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an experimental Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, nemtabrutinib (from Merck Sharp & Dohme), against standard-of-care BTK inhibitors ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and acalabrutinib (Calquence).
BTK inhibitors target B-cell proliferation in B-cell cancers such as CLL/SLL and allow for chemotherapy-free treatment of some hematological malignancies. In this study, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or another reason for discontinuation occurs, participants will take daily oral nemtabrutinib, ibrutinib, or acalabrutinib.
The study opened in December 2023 in Pennsylvania, Washington, Taiwan, Israel, and the United Kingdom seeking 1200 participants. The primary outcomes are objective response rate and progression-free survival. Overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory leukemia with a KMT2A-gene rearrangement (KMT2A-r). Children aged 1 month to younger than 6 years with this diagnosis may be able to join an open-label, nonrandomized, Children’s Oncology Group phase 2 study to determine the most tolerable and/or effective dose of an experimental oral drug called revumenib when added to chemotherapy.
KMT2A-gene alterations are associated with a poor prognosis in leukemia. These alterations cause blood cells to dedifferentiate and start proliferating uncontrollably as leukemia cells. The expression of the damaged KMT2A gene relies on a protein called menin. Revumenib, from Syndax Pharmaceuticals, blocks menin and prevents expression of KMT2A.
Children in the study will receive two different regimens of revumenib in combination with chemotherapy for up to a year, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and will then be followed for up to 5 years. Trial centers in 12 US states opened their doors in January 2024 looking for 78 participants. Toxicities and minimal residual disease are the primary outcomes; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Previously untreated follicular lymphoma or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Adults with one of these types of lymphoma may be eligible for one of three open-label, randomized, phase 3 trials testing odronextamab (from Regeneron). This bispecific antibody is designed to ‘lock together’ CD20 on cancer cells with CD3-expressing cancer-killing T cells. It has shown anti-lymphoma activity in heavily pretreated patients.
Late in 2023, three phase 3 trials turned the spotlight on treatment-naive patients and started recruiting 2115 participants to assess odronextamab in this setting. The trial OLYMPIA-1 will compare odronextamab with standard-of-care rituximab (Rituxan) plus chemotherapy in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-2 will test the drug in combination with chemotherapy, also in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-3 will evaluate odronextamab plus chemotherapy against rituximab and chemotherapy in people with large B-cell lymphoma.
All study drugs, including odronextamab, will be administered by intravenous infusion, and participants will be followed for up to 5 years. Research centers across eight US states and Australia, Czechia, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and Thailand are currently accepting participants for the three trials. The primary outcomes are various measures of toxicity and complete response at 30 months in the follicular lymphoma studies and toxicity and progression-free survival in large B-cell lymphoma. All three trials are measuring overall survival and QoL as secondary endpoints.
Previously untreated stage II, III, or IV follicular lymphoma. Adults with this type of cancer may be eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing whether an experimental therapy called epcoritamab (from AbbVie) improves disease response and is tolerable when added to standard therapy. For up to 120 weeks, one group of participants will receive a combination of intravenous rituximab and oral lenalidomide (Revlimid), while a second group will also receive subcutaneous injections of epcoritamab. Some participants may be offered investigators’ choice of chemotherapy as well.
Sites across Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and Montana started welcoming their 900 participants in February 2024. The primary outcome is complete response at 30 months. Overall survival and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Adults facing one of these clinical scenarios can join an Academic and Community Cancer Research United open label, phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of combining tafasitamab (Monjuvi), lenalidomide, and venetoclax (Venclexta) for such patients.
Frontline therapy does not cure mantle cell lymphoma, and continued relapses are common. In this situation, treatments can include acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, stem cell transplantation, venetoclax, lenalidomide, and rituximab.
In this study, participants will take venetoclax and lenalidomide daily and receive intravenous tafasitamab every 2 weeks after an initial ramp-up period as per clinic standards. Participants will be followed for 5 years after entering the trial. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, began recruiting the planned 100 trial participants in January 2024. The primary outcome is objective response rate; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Several clinical trials in leukemia and lymphoma have started enrolling recently. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from taking part?
run by the Center for International Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Research.
The purpose of the study is to test whether cyclophosphamide, which is given to prevent a dreaded complication of stem cell transplantation called graft-versus-host disease, can be safely reduced without increasing infection or reducing protection. All participants will receive cyclophosphamide on days 3 and 4 post transplant. One group will receive a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (25 mg/kg per dose), and the other will be given a usual dose (37.5 mg/kg).
Sites in Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington started recruiting for 190 participants in December 2023. Study centers in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin are also planned. Infection-free survival is the primary endpoint, and overall survival is a secondary measure. Quality of life (QoL) is not recorded. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Adults who are newly diagnosed with this type of cancer and have active disease may wish to consider a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an experimental Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, nemtabrutinib (from Merck Sharp & Dohme), against standard-of-care BTK inhibitors ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and acalabrutinib (Calquence).
BTK inhibitors target B-cell proliferation in B-cell cancers such as CLL/SLL and allow for chemotherapy-free treatment of some hematological malignancies. In this study, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or another reason for discontinuation occurs, participants will take daily oral nemtabrutinib, ibrutinib, or acalabrutinib.
The study opened in December 2023 in Pennsylvania, Washington, Taiwan, Israel, and the United Kingdom seeking 1200 participants. The primary outcomes are objective response rate and progression-free survival. Overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory leukemia with a KMT2A-gene rearrangement (KMT2A-r). Children aged 1 month to younger than 6 years with this diagnosis may be able to join an open-label, nonrandomized, Children’s Oncology Group phase 2 study to determine the most tolerable and/or effective dose of an experimental oral drug called revumenib when added to chemotherapy.
KMT2A-gene alterations are associated with a poor prognosis in leukemia. These alterations cause blood cells to dedifferentiate and start proliferating uncontrollably as leukemia cells. The expression of the damaged KMT2A gene relies on a protein called menin. Revumenib, from Syndax Pharmaceuticals, blocks menin and prevents expression of KMT2A.
Children in the study will receive two different regimens of revumenib in combination with chemotherapy for up to a year, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and will then be followed for up to 5 years. Trial centers in 12 US states opened their doors in January 2024 looking for 78 participants. Toxicities and minimal residual disease are the primary outcomes; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Previously untreated follicular lymphoma or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Adults with one of these types of lymphoma may be eligible for one of three open-label, randomized, phase 3 trials testing odronextamab (from Regeneron). This bispecific antibody is designed to ‘lock together’ CD20 on cancer cells with CD3-expressing cancer-killing T cells. It has shown anti-lymphoma activity in heavily pretreated patients.
Late in 2023, three phase 3 trials turned the spotlight on treatment-naive patients and started recruiting 2115 participants to assess odronextamab in this setting. The trial OLYMPIA-1 will compare odronextamab with standard-of-care rituximab (Rituxan) plus chemotherapy in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-2 will test the drug in combination with chemotherapy, also in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-3 will evaluate odronextamab plus chemotherapy against rituximab and chemotherapy in people with large B-cell lymphoma.
All study drugs, including odronextamab, will be administered by intravenous infusion, and participants will be followed for up to 5 years. Research centers across eight US states and Australia, Czechia, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and Thailand are currently accepting participants for the three trials. The primary outcomes are various measures of toxicity and complete response at 30 months in the follicular lymphoma studies and toxicity and progression-free survival in large B-cell lymphoma. All three trials are measuring overall survival and QoL as secondary endpoints.
Previously untreated stage II, III, or IV follicular lymphoma. Adults with this type of cancer may be eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing whether an experimental therapy called epcoritamab (from AbbVie) improves disease response and is tolerable when added to standard therapy. For up to 120 weeks, one group of participants will receive a combination of intravenous rituximab and oral lenalidomide (Revlimid), while a second group will also receive subcutaneous injections of epcoritamab. Some participants may be offered investigators’ choice of chemotherapy as well.
Sites across Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and Montana started welcoming their 900 participants in February 2024. The primary outcome is complete response at 30 months. Overall survival and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Adults facing one of these clinical scenarios can join an Academic and Community Cancer Research United open label, phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of combining tafasitamab (Monjuvi), lenalidomide, and venetoclax (Venclexta) for such patients.
Frontline therapy does not cure mantle cell lymphoma, and continued relapses are common. In this situation, treatments can include acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, stem cell transplantation, venetoclax, lenalidomide, and rituximab.
In this study, participants will take venetoclax and lenalidomide daily and receive intravenous tafasitamab every 2 weeks after an initial ramp-up period as per clinic standards. Participants will be followed for 5 years after entering the trial. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, began recruiting the planned 100 trial participants in January 2024. The primary outcome is objective response rate; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Doxorubicin Increases Breast Cancer Risk in Women With Hodgkin Lymphoma
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Doxorubicin is a mainstay of Hodgkin lymphoma treatment.
- Studies suggest that girls with Hodgkin lymphoma who receive doxorubicin have a higher risk for breast cancer later in life, but it is unclear if women treated as adults face that same risk.
- To find out, investigators reviewed breast cancer incidence in 1964 Dutch women, ages 15-50, who were treated for Hodgkin lymphoma from 1975 to 2008.
- Patients had survived for at least 5 years, and 57% received doxorubicin.
TAKEAWAY:
- Women treated with doxorubicin had a 40% higher risk for breast cancer, and that risk was independent of age of treatment, receipt of chest radiation, and the use of gonadotoxic agents.
- The risk for breast cancer with doxorubicin was dose-dependent, with each 100 mg/m2 dose increment increasing the risk by 18%.
- The findings held whether women were treated years ago or more recently, despite the evolution of treatment strategies for Hodgkin lymphoma.
- After 30 years of follow-up, nearly one in five survivors (20.8%) developed breast cancer. It took 20 years for the elevated risk for breast cancer following treatment with doxorubicin to emerge.
IN PRACTICE:
The study suggests that adolescent and adult women survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma who received doxorubicin have an increased risk for breast cancer, and this risk is independent of age at first Hodgkin lymphoma treatment, receipt of chest radiotherapy, and gonadotoxic treatment, the authors concluded. “Our results have implications for [breast cancer] surveillance guidelines for [Hodgkin lymphoma] survivors and treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed” Hodgkin lymphoma.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Suzanne Neppelenbroek of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published February 15 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Recruitment ended in 2008 before the advent of newer treatments such as antibody-drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors.
DISCLOSURES:
The work was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. Several authors reported ties to Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Doxorubicin is a mainstay of Hodgkin lymphoma treatment.
- Studies suggest that girls with Hodgkin lymphoma who receive doxorubicin have a higher risk for breast cancer later in life, but it is unclear if women treated as adults face that same risk.
- To find out, investigators reviewed breast cancer incidence in 1964 Dutch women, ages 15-50, who were treated for Hodgkin lymphoma from 1975 to 2008.
- Patients had survived for at least 5 years, and 57% received doxorubicin.
TAKEAWAY:
- Women treated with doxorubicin had a 40% higher risk for breast cancer, and that risk was independent of age of treatment, receipt of chest radiation, and the use of gonadotoxic agents.
- The risk for breast cancer with doxorubicin was dose-dependent, with each 100 mg/m2 dose increment increasing the risk by 18%.
- The findings held whether women were treated years ago or more recently, despite the evolution of treatment strategies for Hodgkin lymphoma.
- After 30 years of follow-up, nearly one in five survivors (20.8%) developed breast cancer. It took 20 years for the elevated risk for breast cancer following treatment with doxorubicin to emerge.
IN PRACTICE:
The study suggests that adolescent and adult women survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma who received doxorubicin have an increased risk for breast cancer, and this risk is independent of age at first Hodgkin lymphoma treatment, receipt of chest radiotherapy, and gonadotoxic treatment, the authors concluded. “Our results have implications for [breast cancer] surveillance guidelines for [Hodgkin lymphoma] survivors and treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed” Hodgkin lymphoma.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Suzanne Neppelenbroek of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published February 15 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Recruitment ended in 2008 before the advent of newer treatments such as antibody-drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors.
DISCLOSURES:
The work was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. Several authors reported ties to Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Doxorubicin is a mainstay of Hodgkin lymphoma treatment.
- Studies suggest that girls with Hodgkin lymphoma who receive doxorubicin have a higher risk for breast cancer later in life, but it is unclear if women treated as adults face that same risk.
- To find out, investigators reviewed breast cancer incidence in 1964 Dutch women, ages 15-50, who were treated for Hodgkin lymphoma from 1975 to 2008.
- Patients had survived for at least 5 years, and 57% received doxorubicin.
TAKEAWAY:
- Women treated with doxorubicin had a 40% higher risk for breast cancer, and that risk was independent of age of treatment, receipt of chest radiation, and the use of gonadotoxic agents.
- The risk for breast cancer with doxorubicin was dose-dependent, with each 100 mg/m2 dose increment increasing the risk by 18%.
- The findings held whether women were treated years ago or more recently, despite the evolution of treatment strategies for Hodgkin lymphoma.
- After 30 years of follow-up, nearly one in five survivors (20.8%) developed breast cancer. It took 20 years for the elevated risk for breast cancer following treatment with doxorubicin to emerge.
IN PRACTICE:
The study suggests that adolescent and adult women survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma who received doxorubicin have an increased risk for breast cancer, and this risk is independent of age at first Hodgkin lymphoma treatment, receipt of chest radiotherapy, and gonadotoxic treatment, the authors concluded. “Our results have implications for [breast cancer] surveillance guidelines for [Hodgkin lymphoma] survivors and treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed” Hodgkin lymphoma.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Suzanne Neppelenbroek of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published February 15 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Recruitment ended in 2008 before the advent of newer treatments such as antibody-drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors.
DISCLOSURES:
The work was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. Several authors reported ties to Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Are Food Emulsifiers Associated With Increased Cancer Risk?
Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives.
Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.
Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.
Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.
The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.
In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).
Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.
In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.
The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.
It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives.
Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.
Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.
Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.
The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.
In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).
Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.
In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.
The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.
It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives.
Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.
Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.
Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.
The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.
In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).
Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.
In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.
The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.
It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Democratic Lawmakers Press Pfizer on Chemotherapy Drug Shortages
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
Unleashing Our Immune Response to Quash Cancer
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA’s Project Optimus aims to transform early cancer research
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
AT SITC 2023
How Does Military Service Impact Cancer Risk? It’s Complicated
CHICAGO—While it’s extremely difficult to link cancer rates to military service, researchers are starting to get some initial inklings of possible connections, a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) oncologist told an audience at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
One study found surprising levels of abnormal proteins and cancer in the blood of service members, said Christin DeStefano, MD, of David Grant US Air Force Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base in California. Another may have uncovered a link between military trauma and lymphoma. And an analysis of pilots found they have higher rates of certain kinds of cancer— but lower levels of other cancer types.
“It is hard to tell if service-related exposures heighten the risk of cancer. Some aspects of military service might increase cancer risk,” DeStefano said. “But other aspects of military service might decrease cancer risk.”
The VA has been especially focused on the possible link between military service and cancer since the passage of the PACT Act in 2022. The legislation prioritizes claims for cancer, terminal illnesses, and homelessness, and it’s sparked more than 4.1 million free toxic-exposure screenings for veterans.
VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA, noted in the keynote address at the 2023 AVAHO annual meeting that “Every type of solid tumor is now considered a presumptive condition associated with burden of exposure to veterans deployed anywhere in Central Command, either in the Persian Gulf War or the post-9/11 conflicts.”
DeStefano noted that there are a variety of challenges to analyzing data regarding connections between military exposure and cancer. For one, “it’s hard to include people from the time they enter the military to postmilitary service. Some are getting their health care in the civilian health care systems.” In addition, “There are a lot of problems with ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, which can be very erroneous. Maybe somebody came in with a mass, the doctor or the nurse practitioner was busy and they put down ‘suspected cancer,’ and now they have that ICD code in their chart where they never actually had cancer.” This is why more reliable cancer registries are so important, she said.
Another challenge is figuring out when exposures occurred and whether they actually occurred in the military at all. “There are multiple studies suggesting that a first driver event is often acquired 20 to 40 years before a cancer diagnosis, often in one’s 20s and 30s,” she said. “It's hard to quantify an exposure, since there can be exposures before military service and exposures after military service. The amount of exposure and duration of exposure might differ, and individuals might metabolize the exposures differently from each other.”
To make matters more complicated, research is pointing in surprising directions. DeStefano highlighted her not-yet-published study of monoclonal gammopathy (MG), a condition in which abnormal proteins are found in the blood, in 534 service members. MG can be a cancer precursor. Those exposed to burn pits in Iraq had similar risks of MG (6.7%) vs an unexposed, matched control group (5.4%; P = .22), Dr. DeStefano said. Over a mean follow-up of 14 years and 10 years, respectively, 7% of participants in each group developed cancer.
“You might think, ‘this is a negative study. There's no difference.’ However, it is very notable that the prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy was 6.1%. That is 3 times as high as we would expect in somebody in their 40s,” she said. “Also, 7% having a cancer diagnosis is not insignificant.” She added: “It is very possible that many of these service members already have full-blown multiple myeloma or something associated with monoclonal gammopathy that just has not been diagnosed yet.”
In another study, this one published in 2021, Dr. DeStefano and colleagues tracked 8834 injured Iraq/Afghanistan veterans and compared them with matched controls to see if there was a link between severe trauma and cancer. There wasn’t except for lymphoma (22 vs 7 cases, respectively; odds ratio = 3.1; 95% CI, 1.34-7.37; P = .008). The connection remained after adjustment for confounders.
What’s going on? “It’s possible that blast injury might induce some alterations to the immune system that might set the stage for lymphoma genesis,” she said. “Or maybe that blast injury is a surrogate for a toxic exposure: Maybe carcinogens are released during a blast injury.”
Dr. DeStefano also highlighted a 2022 study that tracked 386,190 Air Force officers. The study found that combat pilots (9.1% of the total) had greater adjusted odds of testicular and prostate cancers and melanoma than the other officers. Why? “Military pilots have exposure to cosmic ionizing radiation as well as ultraviolet radiation,” she said.
But while “these are scary, sobering things,” she noted that combat pilots were less likely to develop several cancers than the general population, including kidney, testicular, colorectal, bladder and thyroid cancer, and they were less likely to die from colorectal cancer.
CHICAGO—While it’s extremely difficult to link cancer rates to military service, researchers are starting to get some initial inklings of possible connections, a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) oncologist told an audience at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
One study found surprising levels of abnormal proteins and cancer in the blood of service members, said Christin DeStefano, MD, of David Grant US Air Force Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base in California. Another may have uncovered a link between military trauma and lymphoma. And an analysis of pilots found they have higher rates of certain kinds of cancer— but lower levels of other cancer types.
“It is hard to tell if service-related exposures heighten the risk of cancer. Some aspects of military service might increase cancer risk,” DeStefano said. “But other aspects of military service might decrease cancer risk.”
The VA has been especially focused on the possible link between military service and cancer since the passage of the PACT Act in 2022. The legislation prioritizes claims for cancer, terminal illnesses, and homelessness, and it’s sparked more than 4.1 million free toxic-exposure screenings for veterans.
VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA, noted in the keynote address at the 2023 AVAHO annual meeting that “Every type of solid tumor is now considered a presumptive condition associated with burden of exposure to veterans deployed anywhere in Central Command, either in the Persian Gulf War or the post-9/11 conflicts.”
DeStefano noted that there are a variety of challenges to analyzing data regarding connections between military exposure and cancer. For one, “it’s hard to include people from the time they enter the military to postmilitary service. Some are getting their health care in the civilian health care systems.” In addition, “There are a lot of problems with ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, which can be very erroneous. Maybe somebody came in with a mass, the doctor or the nurse practitioner was busy and they put down ‘suspected cancer,’ and now they have that ICD code in their chart where they never actually had cancer.” This is why more reliable cancer registries are so important, she said.
Another challenge is figuring out when exposures occurred and whether they actually occurred in the military at all. “There are multiple studies suggesting that a first driver event is often acquired 20 to 40 years before a cancer diagnosis, often in one’s 20s and 30s,” she said. “It's hard to quantify an exposure, since there can be exposures before military service and exposures after military service. The amount of exposure and duration of exposure might differ, and individuals might metabolize the exposures differently from each other.”
To make matters more complicated, research is pointing in surprising directions. DeStefano highlighted her not-yet-published study of monoclonal gammopathy (MG), a condition in which abnormal proteins are found in the blood, in 534 service members. MG can be a cancer precursor. Those exposed to burn pits in Iraq had similar risks of MG (6.7%) vs an unexposed, matched control group (5.4%; P = .22), Dr. DeStefano said. Over a mean follow-up of 14 years and 10 years, respectively, 7% of participants in each group developed cancer.
“You might think, ‘this is a negative study. There's no difference.’ However, it is very notable that the prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy was 6.1%. That is 3 times as high as we would expect in somebody in their 40s,” she said. “Also, 7% having a cancer diagnosis is not insignificant.” She added: “It is very possible that many of these service members already have full-blown multiple myeloma or something associated with monoclonal gammopathy that just has not been diagnosed yet.”
In another study, this one published in 2021, Dr. DeStefano and colleagues tracked 8834 injured Iraq/Afghanistan veterans and compared them with matched controls to see if there was a link between severe trauma and cancer. There wasn’t except for lymphoma (22 vs 7 cases, respectively; odds ratio = 3.1; 95% CI, 1.34-7.37; P = .008). The connection remained after adjustment for confounders.
What’s going on? “It’s possible that blast injury might induce some alterations to the immune system that might set the stage for lymphoma genesis,” she said. “Or maybe that blast injury is a surrogate for a toxic exposure: Maybe carcinogens are released during a blast injury.”
Dr. DeStefano also highlighted a 2022 study that tracked 386,190 Air Force officers. The study found that combat pilots (9.1% of the total) had greater adjusted odds of testicular and prostate cancers and melanoma than the other officers. Why? “Military pilots have exposure to cosmic ionizing radiation as well as ultraviolet radiation,” she said.
But while “these are scary, sobering things,” she noted that combat pilots were less likely to develop several cancers than the general population, including kidney, testicular, colorectal, bladder and thyroid cancer, and they were less likely to die from colorectal cancer.
CHICAGO—While it’s extremely difficult to link cancer rates to military service, researchers are starting to get some initial inklings of possible connections, a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) oncologist told an audience at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
One study found surprising levels of abnormal proteins and cancer in the blood of service members, said Christin DeStefano, MD, of David Grant US Air Force Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base in California. Another may have uncovered a link between military trauma and lymphoma. And an analysis of pilots found they have higher rates of certain kinds of cancer— but lower levels of other cancer types.
“It is hard to tell if service-related exposures heighten the risk of cancer. Some aspects of military service might increase cancer risk,” DeStefano said. “But other aspects of military service might decrease cancer risk.”
The VA has been especially focused on the possible link between military service and cancer since the passage of the PACT Act in 2022. The legislation prioritizes claims for cancer, terminal illnesses, and homelessness, and it’s sparked more than 4.1 million free toxic-exposure screenings for veterans.
VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA, noted in the keynote address at the 2023 AVAHO annual meeting that “Every type of solid tumor is now considered a presumptive condition associated with burden of exposure to veterans deployed anywhere in Central Command, either in the Persian Gulf War or the post-9/11 conflicts.”
DeStefano noted that there are a variety of challenges to analyzing data regarding connections between military exposure and cancer. For one, “it’s hard to include people from the time they enter the military to postmilitary service. Some are getting their health care in the civilian health care systems.” In addition, “There are a lot of problems with ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, which can be very erroneous. Maybe somebody came in with a mass, the doctor or the nurse practitioner was busy and they put down ‘suspected cancer,’ and now they have that ICD code in their chart where they never actually had cancer.” This is why more reliable cancer registries are so important, she said.
Another challenge is figuring out when exposures occurred and whether they actually occurred in the military at all. “There are multiple studies suggesting that a first driver event is often acquired 20 to 40 years before a cancer diagnosis, often in one’s 20s and 30s,” she said. “It's hard to quantify an exposure, since there can be exposures before military service and exposures after military service. The amount of exposure and duration of exposure might differ, and individuals might metabolize the exposures differently from each other.”
To make matters more complicated, research is pointing in surprising directions. DeStefano highlighted her not-yet-published study of monoclonal gammopathy (MG), a condition in which abnormal proteins are found in the blood, in 534 service members. MG can be a cancer precursor. Those exposed to burn pits in Iraq had similar risks of MG (6.7%) vs an unexposed, matched control group (5.4%; P = .22), Dr. DeStefano said. Over a mean follow-up of 14 years and 10 years, respectively, 7% of participants in each group developed cancer.
“You might think, ‘this is a negative study. There's no difference.’ However, it is very notable that the prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy was 6.1%. That is 3 times as high as we would expect in somebody in their 40s,” she said. “Also, 7% having a cancer diagnosis is not insignificant.” She added: “It is very possible that many of these service members already have full-blown multiple myeloma or something associated with monoclonal gammopathy that just has not been diagnosed yet.”
In another study, this one published in 2021, Dr. DeStefano and colleagues tracked 8834 injured Iraq/Afghanistan veterans and compared them with matched controls to see if there was a link between severe trauma and cancer. There wasn’t except for lymphoma (22 vs 7 cases, respectively; odds ratio = 3.1; 95% CI, 1.34-7.37; P = .008). The connection remained after adjustment for confounders.
What’s going on? “It’s possible that blast injury might induce some alterations to the immune system that might set the stage for lymphoma genesis,” she said. “Or maybe that blast injury is a surrogate for a toxic exposure: Maybe carcinogens are released during a blast injury.”
Dr. DeStefano also highlighted a 2022 study that tracked 386,190 Air Force officers. The study found that combat pilots (9.1% of the total) had greater adjusted odds of testicular and prostate cancers and melanoma than the other officers. Why? “Military pilots have exposure to cosmic ionizing radiation as well as ultraviolet radiation,” she said.
But while “these are scary, sobering things,” she noted that combat pilots were less likely to develop several cancers than the general population, including kidney, testicular, colorectal, bladder and thyroid cancer, and they were less likely to die from colorectal cancer.
Salvage option to replace transplant in r/r Hodgkin lymphoma?
SAN DIEGO –
Patients who received second-line chemoimmunotherapy with nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin, with or without bendamustine, and proceeded to involved-site radiation appeared to have similar survival outcomes to those who received the chemoimmunotherapy combination plus the current second-line standard of care, which includes high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.
Among 28 patients with low-risk relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma followed for a median of 32 months, 3-year event-free survival without autologous stem cell transplant was 86.9% and 3-year progression-free survival was 95%, reported Brad Hoppe, MD, MPH, from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. In contrast, 1-year progression-free survival was 91% among the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant, according to results of a trial the investigators published online in Blood in late 2022.
The latest results from the phase 2 CheckMate 744 trial were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Radiation Oncology.
“The findings suggest that children, adolescents, and young adults with low-risk relapsed classic Hodgkin lymphoma can be salvaged with low-toxicity chemoimmunotherapy and may not require high-dose therapy and transplant for a cure,” Dr. Hoppe said in an oral abstract session.
Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, a radiation oncologist who specializes in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and other hematologic malignancies, said that, while the number of patients in the study was small and the follow-up too short, this option is “certainly something that’s very promising for the future.”
“The use of transplant in relapsed patients, which we have been doing for decades, is based on two very old, small, randomized studies,” said Dr. Ng, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who moderated the session.
“So, do we really need to transplant everybody? In the back of our minds, we think that we may be overtreating some patients,” she said.
Several small, retrospective studies exploring treatment with conventional chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy and without transplant in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma have demonstrated only modest results.
The CheckMate 744 trial, however, was designed to examine a risk-adapted and response-adapted approach to treating children, adolescents, and young adults with relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma within the setting of modern immunotherapy and targeted therapy. This approach was developed jointly by investigators with the Children’s Oncology Group and Euronet.
In the nonrandomized trial, patients were stratified into low-risk or standard-risk disease categories based on an algorithm that included factors at the time of initial diagnosis and relapse.
Patients were considered low-risk for relapse in three scenarios: (1) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed at least 1 year after the end of therapy; (2) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed between 3 and 12 months from the end of therapy but had received no more than three cycles of chemotherapy and no radiation therapy; or (3) if they had initial stage IB, IIB, or IIIA disease that relapsed more than 12 months after the end of first-line therapy.
To be included in the low-risk category, patients also had to be free of B symptoms or extranodal disease, free of relapse in prior radiation therapy fields, and have no more than four sites of lymphoma.
Low-risk patients were treated with a combination of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin, which could be followed by additional brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine for those with a suboptimal response. Patients who achieved complete molecular remission after induction went on to consolidation therapy with involved-site radiation at a total dose of 30 Gy.
Patients considered standard-risk for relapse received the same nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin combination, with or without bendamustine, and then went on to high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.
In other results for the previously mentioned study published in Blood, the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant had an objective response rate of 95% – 86% of patients achieved complete molecular remission, and 9% achieved partial molecular remission.
At ASTRO, Dr. Hoppe reported results for the 28 patients with low-risk disease. One patient discontinued nivolumab/brentuximab vedotin after two cycles because of skin toxicity and was lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 27 patients, 21 had complete molecular remission after four cycles of the combination, and these patients went on to an additional two cycles of the combination, with 19 of 21 receiving involved-site radiation consolidation.
Six patients who had either a partial molecular remission or no response were given two additional cycles of brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine. Of this group, three went on to complete molecular remission and received involved-site radiation consolidation on protocol. The remaining three patients who did not experience complete molecular remission received involved-site radiation off protocol.
The rate of complete molecular remission after four cycles of induction was 82.1%, and the rate of partial molecular remission was 14.3%, for an objective response rate of 96.4%. The respective response rates with the addition of two cycles of brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine were 92.9% and 7.1%, for an objective response rate of 100%, Dr. Hoppe reported.
Overall, at a median follow-up of 32 months, the 3-year event-free survival rate without transplant was 86.9%, and the 3-year progression-free survival rate was 95%.
Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 22 patients (78.6%) after induction, with 7 of those events (25%) being grade 3 or 4 in severity. Grade 3 or 4 events consisted of skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders in 3 patients, elevated liver function tests in 3 patients, and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 1 patient.
There were no new toxicities detected within 100 days of treatment.
“The results that Dr. Hoppe showed us are really, really good,” Dr. Ng said. And “the volume of treatment is pretty tiny, so I think we can safely say that long-term toxicities are very, very minimal.”
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seagen, Euronet-Paediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma, and the Children’s Oncology Group. Dr. Hoppe reported serving on a scientific advisory committee for Merck. Dr. Ng reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO –
Patients who received second-line chemoimmunotherapy with nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin, with or without bendamustine, and proceeded to involved-site radiation appeared to have similar survival outcomes to those who received the chemoimmunotherapy combination plus the current second-line standard of care, which includes high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.
Among 28 patients with low-risk relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma followed for a median of 32 months, 3-year event-free survival without autologous stem cell transplant was 86.9% and 3-year progression-free survival was 95%, reported Brad Hoppe, MD, MPH, from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. In contrast, 1-year progression-free survival was 91% among the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant, according to results of a trial the investigators published online in Blood in late 2022.
The latest results from the phase 2 CheckMate 744 trial were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Radiation Oncology.
“The findings suggest that children, adolescents, and young adults with low-risk relapsed classic Hodgkin lymphoma can be salvaged with low-toxicity chemoimmunotherapy and may not require high-dose therapy and transplant for a cure,” Dr. Hoppe said in an oral abstract session.
Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, a radiation oncologist who specializes in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and other hematologic malignancies, said that, while the number of patients in the study was small and the follow-up too short, this option is “certainly something that’s very promising for the future.”
“The use of transplant in relapsed patients, which we have been doing for decades, is based on two very old, small, randomized studies,” said Dr. Ng, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who moderated the session.
“So, do we really need to transplant everybody? In the back of our minds, we think that we may be overtreating some patients,” she said.
Several small, retrospective studies exploring treatment with conventional chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy and without transplant in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma have demonstrated only modest results.
The CheckMate 744 trial, however, was designed to examine a risk-adapted and response-adapted approach to treating children, adolescents, and young adults with relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma within the setting of modern immunotherapy and targeted therapy. This approach was developed jointly by investigators with the Children’s Oncology Group and Euronet.
In the nonrandomized trial, patients were stratified into low-risk or standard-risk disease categories based on an algorithm that included factors at the time of initial diagnosis and relapse.
Patients were considered low-risk for relapse in three scenarios: (1) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed at least 1 year after the end of therapy; (2) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed between 3 and 12 months from the end of therapy but had received no more than three cycles of chemotherapy and no radiation therapy; or (3) if they had initial stage IB, IIB, or IIIA disease that relapsed more than 12 months after the end of first-line therapy.
To be included in the low-risk category, patients also had to be free of B symptoms or extranodal disease, free of relapse in prior radiation therapy fields, and have no more than four sites of lymphoma.
Low-risk patients were treated with a combination of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin, which could be followed by additional brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine for those with a suboptimal response. Patients who achieved complete molecular remission after induction went on to consolidation therapy with involved-site radiation at a total dose of 30 Gy.
Patients considered standard-risk for relapse received the same nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin combination, with or without bendamustine, and then went on to high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.
In other results for the previously mentioned study published in Blood, the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant had an objective response rate of 95% – 86% of patients achieved complete molecular remission, and 9% achieved partial molecular remission.
At ASTRO, Dr. Hoppe reported results for the 28 patients with low-risk disease. One patient discontinued nivolumab/brentuximab vedotin after two cycles because of skin toxicity and was lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 27 patients, 21 had complete molecular remission after four cycles of the combination, and these patients went on to an additional two cycles of the combination, with 19 of 21 receiving involved-site radiation consolidation.
Six patients who had either a partial molecular remission or no response were given two additional cycles of brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine. Of this group, three went on to complete molecular remission and received involved-site radiation consolidation on protocol. The remaining three patients who did not experience complete molecular remission received involved-site radiation off protocol.
The rate of complete molecular remission after four cycles of induction was 82.1%, and the rate of partial molecular remission was 14.3%, for an objective response rate of 96.4%. The respective response rates with the addition of two cycles of brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine were 92.9% and 7.1%, for an objective response rate of 100%, Dr. Hoppe reported.
Overall, at a median follow-up of 32 months, the 3-year event-free survival rate without transplant was 86.9%, and the 3-year progression-free survival rate was 95%.
Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 22 patients (78.6%) after induction, with 7 of those events (25%) being grade 3 or 4 in severity. Grade 3 or 4 events consisted of skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders in 3 patients, elevated liver function tests in 3 patients, and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 1 patient.
There were no new toxicities detected within 100 days of treatment.
“The results that Dr. Hoppe showed us are really, really good,” Dr. Ng said. And “the volume of treatment is pretty tiny, so I think we can safely say that long-term toxicities are very, very minimal.”
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seagen, Euronet-Paediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma, and the Children’s Oncology Group. Dr. Hoppe reported serving on a scientific advisory committee for Merck. Dr. Ng reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO –
Patients who received second-line chemoimmunotherapy with nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin, with or without bendamustine, and proceeded to involved-site radiation appeared to have similar survival outcomes to those who received the chemoimmunotherapy combination plus the current second-line standard of care, which includes high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.
Among 28 patients with low-risk relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma followed for a median of 32 months, 3-year event-free survival without autologous stem cell transplant was 86.9% and 3-year progression-free survival was 95%, reported Brad Hoppe, MD, MPH, from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. In contrast, 1-year progression-free survival was 91% among the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant, according to results of a trial the investigators published online in Blood in late 2022.
The latest results from the phase 2 CheckMate 744 trial were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Radiation Oncology.
“The findings suggest that children, adolescents, and young adults with low-risk relapsed classic Hodgkin lymphoma can be salvaged with low-toxicity chemoimmunotherapy and may not require high-dose therapy and transplant for a cure,” Dr. Hoppe said in an oral abstract session.
Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, a radiation oncologist who specializes in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and other hematologic malignancies, said that, while the number of patients in the study was small and the follow-up too short, this option is “certainly something that’s very promising for the future.”
“The use of transplant in relapsed patients, which we have been doing for decades, is based on two very old, small, randomized studies,” said Dr. Ng, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who moderated the session.
“So, do we really need to transplant everybody? In the back of our minds, we think that we may be overtreating some patients,” she said.
Several small, retrospective studies exploring treatment with conventional chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy and without transplant in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma have demonstrated only modest results.
The CheckMate 744 trial, however, was designed to examine a risk-adapted and response-adapted approach to treating children, adolescents, and young adults with relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma within the setting of modern immunotherapy and targeted therapy. This approach was developed jointly by investigators with the Children’s Oncology Group and Euronet.
In the nonrandomized trial, patients were stratified into low-risk or standard-risk disease categories based on an algorithm that included factors at the time of initial diagnosis and relapse.
Patients were considered low-risk for relapse in three scenarios: (1) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed at least 1 year after the end of therapy; (2) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed between 3 and 12 months from the end of therapy but had received no more than three cycles of chemotherapy and no radiation therapy; or (3) if they had initial stage IB, IIB, or IIIA disease that relapsed more than 12 months after the end of first-line therapy.
To be included in the low-risk category, patients also had to be free of B symptoms or extranodal disease, free of relapse in prior radiation therapy fields, and have no more than four sites of lymphoma.
Low-risk patients were treated with a combination of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin, which could be followed by additional brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine for those with a suboptimal response. Patients who achieved complete molecular remission after induction went on to consolidation therapy with involved-site radiation at a total dose of 30 Gy.
Patients considered standard-risk for relapse received the same nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin combination, with or without bendamustine, and then went on to high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.
In other results for the previously mentioned study published in Blood, the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant had an objective response rate of 95% – 86% of patients achieved complete molecular remission, and 9% achieved partial molecular remission.
At ASTRO, Dr. Hoppe reported results for the 28 patients with low-risk disease. One patient discontinued nivolumab/brentuximab vedotin after two cycles because of skin toxicity and was lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 27 patients, 21 had complete molecular remission after four cycles of the combination, and these patients went on to an additional two cycles of the combination, with 19 of 21 receiving involved-site radiation consolidation.
Six patients who had either a partial molecular remission or no response were given two additional cycles of brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine. Of this group, three went on to complete molecular remission and received involved-site radiation consolidation on protocol. The remaining three patients who did not experience complete molecular remission received involved-site radiation off protocol.
The rate of complete molecular remission after four cycles of induction was 82.1%, and the rate of partial molecular remission was 14.3%, for an objective response rate of 96.4%. The respective response rates with the addition of two cycles of brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine were 92.9% and 7.1%, for an objective response rate of 100%, Dr. Hoppe reported.
Overall, at a median follow-up of 32 months, the 3-year event-free survival rate without transplant was 86.9%, and the 3-year progression-free survival rate was 95%.
Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 22 patients (78.6%) after induction, with 7 of those events (25%) being grade 3 or 4 in severity. Grade 3 or 4 events consisted of skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders in 3 patients, elevated liver function tests in 3 patients, and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 1 patient.
There were no new toxicities detected within 100 days of treatment.
“The results that Dr. Hoppe showed us are really, really good,” Dr. Ng said. And “the volume of treatment is pretty tiny, so I think we can safely say that long-term toxicities are very, very minimal.”
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seagen, Euronet-Paediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma, and the Children’s Oncology Group. Dr. Hoppe reported serving on a scientific advisory committee for Merck. Dr. Ng reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASTRO 2023
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Presenting as Mediastinal Lymphadenopathy Without Appreciable Bladder Mass in a Patient With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
INTRODUCTION
Lymphadenopathy in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) is a very common feature. However, sudden increase in lymphadenopathy or other symptoms like weight loss should be evaluated for possible metastatic malignancy. We describe a CLL patient with diffuse mediastinal lymphadenopathy who was diagnosed with metastatic bladder cancer without a primary bladder tumor mass on imaging.
CASE DESCRIPTION
A 60-year-old man with a 60 pack-year smoking history, alcoholic cirrhosis, and a 5-year history of stage 1 CLL presented with 3 months of progressive shortness of breath; persistent cough; chills; hemoptysis; and a steady weight loss of 35 lbs. Notably, he had no bladder symptoms. Initial labs showed leukocytosis of 35.8k with a lymphocytic predominance. Screening low-dose chest CT was positive for diffuse mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Subsequent PET/CT revealed numerous hypermetabolic lymph nodes in the neck, mediastinum, left hilum, and right periaortic abdominal region. CT Chest, Abdomen, Pelvis revealed progressive lymphadenopathy as seen in prior imaging, stable pulmonary nodules up to 4 mm in size, and splenomegaly. No distant primary sites, including of the bladder, were identified. Mediastinal lymph node biopsy confirmed metastatic poorly differentiated carcinoma with immunohistochemical staining negative for p40, p63, CK20, TTF-1, Napsin A, CDX2, CA19- 9, Calretinin, and D2-40 and positive for CK7, GATA3, Ber-EP4, and Uroplakin, supporting bladder as primary origin. Urology deferred a cystoscopy given his lack of urinary symptoms and positive biopsy and was started on Carboplatin/Gemcitabine for his metastatic disease. He was ineligible for Cisplatin given his cirrhosis and hearing impairment.
DISCUSSION
In patients with CLL, new onset mediastinal lymphadenopathy is concerning for disease progression and possible transformation to a diffuse b-cell lymphoma. However, this symptom has a broad differential, including primary lung carcinomas, sarcomas, and metastatic disease. While our patient’s PET/CT and pan-CT failed to identify a distant primary site, maintaining a low clinical suspicion for metastatic disease and doing a thorough work-up was paramount. Only through immunohistochemical staining were we able to diagnosis this patient with urothelial carcinoma.
CONCLUSIONS
Biopsy with immunohistochemical staining and maintaining a low suspicion for worsening lymphadenopathy can identify unusually presenting urothelial carcinomas in CLL patients.
INTRODUCTION
Lymphadenopathy in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) is a very common feature. However, sudden increase in lymphadenopathy or other symptoms like weight loss should be evaluated for possible metastatic malignancy. We describe a CLL patient with diffuse mediastinal lymphadenopathy who was diagnosed with metastatic bladder cancer without a primary bladder tumor mass on imaging.
CASE DESCRIPTION
A 60-year-old man with a 60 pack-year smoking history, alcoholic cirrhosis, and a 5-year history of stage 1 CLL presented with 3 months of progressive shortness of breath; persistent cough; chills; hemoptysis; and a steady weight loss of 35 lbs. Notably, he had no bladder symptoms. Initial labs showed leukocytosis of 35.8k with a lymphocytic predominance. Screening low-dose chest CT was positive for diffuse mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Subsequent PET/CT revealed numerous hypermetabolic lymph nodes in the neck, mediastinum, left hilum, and right periaortic abdominal region. CT Chest, Abdomen, Pelvis revealed progressive lymphadenopathy as seen in prior imaging, stable pulmonary nodules up to 4 mm in size, and splenomegaly. No distant primary sites, including of the bladder, were identified. Mediastinal lymph node biopsy confirmed metastatic poorly differentiated carcinoma with immunohistochemical staining negative for p40, p63, CK20, TTF-1, Napsin A, CDX2, CA19- 9, Calretinin, and D2-40 and positive for CK7, GATA3, Ber-EP4, and Uroplakin, supporting bladder as primary origin. Urology deferred a cystoscopy given his lack of urinary symptoms and positive biopsy and was started on Carboplatin/Gemcitabine for his metastatic disease. He was ineligible for Cisplatin given his cirrhosis and hearing impairment.
DISCUSSION
In patients with CLL, new onset mediastinal lymphadenopathy is concerning for disease progression and possible transformation to a diffuse b-cell lymphoma. However, this symptom has a broad differential, including primary lung carcinomas, sarcomas, and metastatic disease. While our patient’s PET/CT and pan-CT failed to identify a distant primary site, maintaining a low clinical suspicion for metastatic disease and doing a thorough work-up was paramount. Only through immunohistochemical staining were we able to diagnosis this patient with urothelial carcinoma.
CONCLUSIONS
Biopsy with immunohistochemical staining and maintaining a low suspicion for worsening lymphadenopathy can identify unusually presenting urothelial carcinomas in CLL patients.
INTRODUCTION
Lymphadenopathy in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) is a very common feature. However, sudden increase in lymphadenopathy or other symptoms like weight loss should be evaluated for possible metastatic malignancy. We describe a CLL patient with diffuse mediastinal lymphadenopathy who was diagnosed with metastatic bladder cancer without a primary bladder tumor mass on imaging.
CASE DESCRIPTION
A 60-year-old man with a 60 pack-year smoking history, alcoholic cirrhosis, and a 5-year history of stage 1 CLL presented with 3 months of progressive shortness of breath; persistent cough; chills; hemoptysis; and a steady weight loss of 35 lbs. Notably, he had no bladder symptoms. Initial labs showed leukocytosis of 35.8k with a lymphocytic predominance. Screening low-dose chest CT was positive for diffuse mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Subsequent PET/CT revealed numerous hypermetabolic lymph nodes in the neck, mediastinum, left hilum, and right periaortic abdominal region. CT Chest, Abdomen, Pelvis revealed progressive lymphadenopathy as seen in prior imaging, stable pulmonary nodules up to 4 mm in size, and splenomegaly. No distant primary sites, including of the bladder, were identified. Mediastinal lymph node biopsy confirmed metastatic poorly differentiated carcinoma with immunohistochemical staining negative for p40, p63, CK20, TTF-1, Napsin A, CDX2, CA19- 9, Calretinin, and D2-40 and positive for CK7, GATA3, Ber-EP4, and Uroplakin, supporting bladder as primary origin. Urology deferred a cystoscopy given his lack of urinary symptoms and positive biopsy and was started on Carboplatin/Gemcitabine for his metastatic disease. He was ineligible for Cisplatin given his cirrhosis and hearing impairment.
DISCUSSION
In patients with CLL, new onset mediastinal lymphadenopathy is concerning for disease progression and possible transformation to a diffuse b-cell lymphoma. However, this symptom has a broad differential, including primary lung carcinomas, sarcomas, and metastatic disease. While our patient’s PET/CT and pan-CT failed to identify a distant primary site, maintaining a low clinical suspicion for metastatic disease and doing a thorough work-up was paramount. Only through immunohistochemical staining were we able to diagnosis this patient with urothelial carcinoma.
CONCLUSIONS
Biopsy with immunohistochemical staining and maintaining a low suspicion for worsening lymphadenopathy can identify unusually presenting urothelial carcinomas in CLL patients.
The ‘psychological warfare’ of prior authorization
Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.
It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.
The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.
Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.
“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”
The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.
Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.
That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.
But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.
“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”
Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.
This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.
There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.
There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.
And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.
“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”
For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”
The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.
According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”
“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”
In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”
Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.
“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.
It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.
The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.
Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.
“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”
The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.
Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.
That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.
But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.
“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”
Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.
This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.
There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.
There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.
And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.
“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”
For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”
The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.
According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”
“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”
In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”
Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.
“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.
It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.
The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.
Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.
“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”
The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.
Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.
That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.
But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.
“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”
Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.
This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.
There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.
There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.
And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.
“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”
For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”
The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.
According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”
“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”
In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”
Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.
“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.