User login
Panel: MRD Tests May Speed Myeloma Tx Approvals
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?
The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.
ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.
There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).
“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”
“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.
Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.
The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.
Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.
These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.
In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.
The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.
The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.
The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.
In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.
Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.
The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.
Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.
“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”
Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.
“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?
The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.
ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.
There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).
“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”
“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.
Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.
The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.
Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.
These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.
In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.
The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.
The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.
The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.
In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.
Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.
The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.
Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.
“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”
Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.
“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?
The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.
ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.
There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).
“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”
“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.
Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.
The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.
Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.
These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.
In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.
The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.
The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.
The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.
In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.
Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.
The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.
Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.
“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”
Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.
“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”
No Routine Cancer Screening Option? New MCED Tests May Help
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Oncologists Voice Ethical Concerns Over AI in Cancer Care
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Less Than 50% of Accelerated Approvals Show Clinical Benefit
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Abecma Approved for Earlier Lines in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
The approval expands the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy’s indications to earlier lines of treatment after exposure to these other main therapy classes, Bristol Myers Squibb said in a press release.
Approval was based on the KarMMa-3 trial, in which 254 patients were randomly assigned to ide-cel and 132 to investigators’ choice of standard regimens, consisting of combinations of daratumumab, dexamethasone, and other agents.
After a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival was three times higher in the ide-cel arm: 13.3 months with the CAR T-cell therapy vs 4.4 months with standard treatment. Overall, 39% of patients on ide-cel had a complete response vs 5% on standard regimens.
The approval includes a new recommended dose range of 300-510 x 106 CAR-positive T cells.
Ide-cel carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and secondary hematologic cancers.
In trials, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 89% (310 of 349) of patients in the KarMMa-3 and KarMMa studies, which included grade 3 syndrome in 7% (23 of 349) and fatal cases in 0.9% (3 of 349) of patients.
A one-time treatment is over $500,000, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval expands the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy’s indications to earlier lines of treatment after exposure to these other main therapy classes, Bristol Myers Squibb said in a press release.
Approval was based on the KarMMa-3 trial, in which 254 patients were randomly assigned to ide-cel and 132 to investigators’ choice of standard regimens, consisting of combinations of daratumumab, dexamethasone, and other agents.
After a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival was three times higher in the ide-cel arm: 13.3 months with the CAR T-cell therapy vs 4.4 months with standard treatment. Overall, 39% of patients on ide-cel had a complete response vs 5% on standard regimens.
The approval includes a new recommended dose range of 300-510 x 106 CAR-positive T cells.
Ide-cel carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and secondary hematologic cancers.
In trials, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 89% (310 of 349) of patients in the KarMMa-3 and KarMMa studies, which included grade 3 syndrome in 7% (23 of 349) and fatal cases in 0.9% (3 of 349) of patients.
A one-time treatment is over $500,000, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval expands the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy’s indications to earlier lines of treatment after exposure to these other main therapy classes, Bristol Myers Squibb said in a press release.
Approval was based on the KarMMa-3 trial, in which 254 patients were randomly assigned to ide-cel and 132 to investigators’ choice of standard regimens, consisting of combinations of daratumumab, dexamethasone, and other agents.
After a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival was three times higher in the ide-cel arm: 13.3 months with the CAR T-cell therapy vs 4.4 months with standard treatment. Overall, 39% of patients on ide-cel had a complete response vs 5% on standard regimens.
The approval includes a new recommended dose range of 300-510 x 106 CAR-positive T cells.
Ide-cel carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and secondary hematologic cancers.
In trials, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 89% (310 of 349) of patients in the KarMMa-3 and KarMMa studies, which included grade 3 syndrome in 7% (23 of 349) and fatal cases in 0.9% (3 of 349) of patients.
A one-time treatment is over $500,000, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Virtual Reality Brings Relief to Hospitalized Patients With Cancer
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM CANCER
Should Opioids Be Used for Chronic Cancer Pain?
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
FROM CANCER
A Banned Chemical That Is Still Causing Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Active Surveillance for Cancer Doesn’t Increase Malpractice Risk
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ASCO Releases Vaccination Guidelines for Adults With Cancer
TOPLINE:
“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines.
METHODOLOGY:
- “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote.
- The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts.
- The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies.
- Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies.
- The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer.
TAKEAWAY:
- The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment.
- The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT.
- After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months.
- After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines.
- Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe.
IN PRACTICE:
“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”
SOURCE:
Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.
DISCLOSURES:
This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines.
METHODOLOGY:
- “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote.
- The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts.
- The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies.
- Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies.
- The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer.
TAKEAWAY:
- The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment.
- The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT.
- After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months.
- After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines.
- Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe.
IN PRACTICE:
“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”
SOURCE:
Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.
DISCLOSURES:
This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines.
METHODOLOGY:
- “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote.
- The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts.
- The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies.
- Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies.
- The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer.
TAKEAWAY:
- The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment.
- The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT.
- After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months.
- After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines.
- Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe.
IN PRACTICE:
“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”
SOURCE:
Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.
DISCLOSURES:
This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.