MDedge Hematology and Oncology

For breast cancer survivors harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations, the prospect of future pregnancy often raises concerns because of limited data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in this population. However, results from a large international study presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress provide reassuring evidence that ART, such as in vitro fertilization, can be safely used by BRCA1/2 mutation carriers previously treated for breast cancer.

“Our primary aim was to evaluate the safety profile of ART in this high-risk population by comparing maternal and fetal outcomes between those who conceived spontaneously versus those using ART,” explained Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, during his talk at the conference. “We found no statistically significant differences in pregnancy complications or fetal abnormalities.” Dr. Lambertini is an associate professor and medical oncologist at the University of Genova and IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
 

Unmet Fertility Needs for Women With Breast Cancer

With the rising rates of early-onset breast cancer and improved survival outcomes with new therapies, the number of long-term breast cancer survivors is increasing. Fertility preservation and future reproductive choices are important considerations for young patients with breast cancer, especially for high-risk patients carrying pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. During his talk, Dr. Lambertini explained that defects in DNA damage repair due to BRCA1/2 mutations, in addition to chemotherapy after breast cancer diagnosis, can lead to premature menopause.

According to Dr. Lambertini, physicians face challenges in counseling these patients regarding the potential risks and benefits of pursuing pregnancy after cancer treatment because of the limited evidence available on the safety of ART in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

“Clinicians have to counsel BRCA carriers based on very limited data about the safety of pursuing pregnancy with ART after a breast cancer diagnosis,” he said during his presentation.
 

Study Design and Patient Population

The retrospective cohort study pooled data from 78 centers worldwide to explore ART outcomes in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. The analysis included 4732 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 40 years or younger, all harboring a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant.

Among these high-risk patients, 543 became pregnant after completing cancer treatment; of these, 436 conceived naturally and 107 used ART. In the ART group, 45.5% underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation at breast cancer diagnosis, 33.3% underwent ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization after cancer treatment, and 21.2% underwent embryo transfer following oocyte donation.

Dr. Janice Tsang, MD, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, highlighted that this is the largest study focusing on ART safety in young patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. “With over 500 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers studied across nearly 80 sites, the cohort analysis had sufficient statistical power and global representation to detect potential safety signals with ART utilization, unlike prior smaller studies,” she said. Dr. Tsang, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Lambertini.
 

No Increased Risks for Pregnancy and Fetal Outcomes

Although women using ART had slightly higher miscarriage rates (11.3% versus 8.8%) and lower rates of induced abortion (0.9% versus 8.3%) than women with spontaneous conceptions, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of pregnancy complications, delivery complications, or congenital abnormalities between those who received ART and those who conceived naturally.

Dr. Lambertini explained that variations in baseline characteristics, such as age, may have contributed to differences in miscarriage rates.

“Patients in the ART group tended to be older at the time of conception, with a median age of 37.1 years, compared with 34.3 years in the spontaneous pregnancy group,” he said, during his presentation. Women in the ART group also more frequently had hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (43.4% versus 30.8%) and longer median time from diagnosis to conception (4.2 versus 3.3 years).
 

No Adverse Effects on Breast Cancer Prognosis

At a median follow-up of 5.2 years from conception, there was no detrimental effect of ART on disease-free survival for carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants who were treated for breast cancer. The ART group showed 13 (13.1%) recurrence events, compared with 118 (27.1%) recurrences in the spontaneous pregnancy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.33; P = .147).

“The risk of cancer recurrence was comparable between those using and not using ART to become pregnant after their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the small number of recurrence events in the ART group mostly involved locoregional recurrences,” Dr. Lambertini noted during his talk.

Moreover, breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival appeared to be similar between the two groups, although the small number of deaths precluded the conduction of formal analysis.

“These survival data suggest that utilizing ART does not appear to negatively impact the prognosis or course of the underlying breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said during the discussion.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Work

According to Dr. Lambertini, these results are incredibly valuable for clinicians counseling young breast cancer survivors with pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations who wish to have biological children.

“Given the interest of patients in having their own family and for some of them in avoiding the transmission of the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, our results are critical in improving the oncofertility counseling of young women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Lambertini during his presentation. “We can reassure patients that pursuing ART does not appear to worsen their cancer prognosis or compromise pregnancy outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions.”

During her discussion session, Dr. Tsang echoed the clinical implications of these findings, emphasizing that, by incorporating this evidence into clinical practice, healthcare providers can better support patients in making informed choices regarding fertility preservation and family planning after cancer treatment.

“Though this study is [retrospective] with a relatively small number, these real-world findings make a major contribution to our limited evidence base on ART safety for cancer survivors carrying BRCA1/2 mutations,” she said.

She cautioned, however, that there remain several unanswered questions and uncertainties. “We need prospective data with a larger sample size to confirm the safety of ART in this population, as well as studies to assess whether different types of ART have different safety profiles.”

Dr. Lambertini concluded his talk by saying, “While waiting for prospective studies to confirm our results, fertility preservation at diagnosis of early breast cancer should be offered to all women interested in future fertility, including BRCA carriers.”

Dr. Lambertini reported financial relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini (consulting or advisory roles); Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, Dalichi Sankyo, Gilead, Menarini (honoraria); Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche (travel support); and Gilead (research funding to the institution). Dr. Tsang reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, Lucence, Novartis, Pfizer, and Veracyte (honoraria); De Novo (consulting or advisory roles); and Pfizer (grant panel reviewer).

For breast cancer survivors harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations, the prospect of future pregnancy often raises concerns because of limited data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in this population. However, results from a large international study presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress provide reassuring evidence that ART, such as in vitro fertilization, can be safely used by BRCA1/2 mutation carriers previously treated for breast cancer.

“Our primary aim was to evaluate the safety profile of ART in this high-risk population by comparing maternal and fetal outcomes between those who conceived spontaneously versus those using ART,” explained Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, during his talk at the conference. “We found no statistically significant differences in pregnancy complications or fetal abnormalities.” Dr. Lambertini is an associate professor and medical oncologist at the University of Genova and IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
 

Unmet Fertility Needs for Women With Breast Cancer

With the rising rates of early-onset breast cancer and improved survival outcomes with new therapies, the number of long-term breast cancer survivors is increasing. Fertility preservation and future reproductive choices are important considerations for young patients with breast cancer, especially for high-risk patients carrying pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. During his talk, Dr. Lambertini explained that defects in DNA damage repair due to BRCA1/2 mutations, in addition to chemotherapy after breast cancer diagnosis, can lead to premature menopause.

According to Dr. Lambertini, physicians face challenges in counseling these patients regarding the potential risks and benefits of pursuing pregnancy after cancer treatment because of the limited evidence available on the safety of ART in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

“Clinicians have to counsel BRCA carriers based on very limited data about the safety of pursuing pregnancy with ART after a breast cancer diagnosis,” he said during his presentation.
 

Study Design and Patient Population

The retrospective cohort study pooled data from 78 centers worldwide to explore ART outcomes in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. The analysis included 4732 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 40 years or younger, all harboring a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant.

Among these high-risk patients, 543 became pregnant after completing cancer treatment; of these, 436 conceived naturally and 107 used ART. In the ART group, 45.5% underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation at breast cancer diagnosis, 33.3% underwent ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization after cancer treatment, and 21.2% underwent embryo transfer following oocyte donation.

Dr. Janice Tsang, MD, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, highlighted that this is the largest study focusing on ART safety in young patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. “With over 500 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers studied across nearly 80 sites, the cohort analysis had sufficient statistical power and global representation to detect potential safety signals with ART utilization, unlike prior smaller studies,” she said. Dr. Tsang, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Lambertini.
 

No Increased Risks for Pregnancy and Fetal Outcomes

Although women using ART had slightly higher miscarriage rates (11.3% versus 8.8%) and lower rates of induced abortion (0.9% versus 8.3%) than women with spontaneous conceptions, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of pregnancy complications, delivery complications, or congenital abnormalities between those who received ART and those who conceived naturally.

Dr. Lambertini explained that variations in baseline characteristics, such as age, may have contributed to differences in miscarriage rates.

“Patients in the ART group tended to be older at the time of conception, with a median age of 37.1 years, compared with 34.3 years in the spontaneous pregnancy group,” he said, during his presentation. Women in the ART group also more frequently had hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (43.4% versus 30.8%) and longer median time from diagnosis to conception (4.2 versus 3.3 years).
 

No Adverse Effects on Breast Cancer Prognosis

At a median follow-up of 5.2 years from conception, there was no detrimental effect of ART on disease-free survival for carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants who were treated for breast cancer. The ART group showed 13 (13.1%) recurrence events, compared with 118 (27.1%) recurrences in the spontaneous pregnancy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.33; P = .147).

“The risk of cancer recurrence was comparable between those using and not using ART to become pregnant after their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the small number of recurrence events in the ART group mostly involved locoregional recurrences,” Dr. Lambertini noted during his talk.

Moreover, breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival appeared to be similar between the two groups, although the small number of deaths precluded the conduction of formal analysis.

“These survival data suggest that utilizing ART does not appear to negatively impact the prognosis or course of the underlying breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said during the discussion.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Work

According to Dr. Lambertini, these results are incredibly valuable for clinicians counseling young breast cancer survivors with pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations who wish to have biological children.

“Given the interest of patients in having their own family and for some of them in avoiding the transmission of the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, our results are critical in improving the oncofertility counseling of young women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Lambertini during his presentation. “We can reassure patients that pursuing ART does not appear to worsen their cancer prognosis or compromise pregnancy outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions.”

During her discussion session, Dr. Tsang echoed the clinical implications of these findings, emphasizing that, by incorporating this evidence into clinical practice, healthcare providers can better support patients in making informed choices regarding fertility preservation and family planning after cancer treatment.

“Though this study is [retrospective] with a relatively small number, these real-world findings make a major contribution to our limited evidence base on ART safety for cancer survivors carrying BRCA1/2 mutations,” she said.

She cautioned, however, that there remain several unanswered questions and uncertainties. “We need prospective data with a larger sample size to confirm the safety of ART in this population, as well as studies to assess whether different types of ART have different safety profiles.”

Dr. Lambertini concluded his talk by saying, “While waiting for prospective studies to confirm our results, fertility preservation at diagnosis of early breast cancer should be offered to all women interested in future fertility, including BRCA carriers.”

Dr. Lambertini reported financial relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini (consulting or advisory roles); Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, Dalichi Sankyo, Gilead, Menarini (honoraria); Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche (travel support); and Gilead (research funding to the institution). Dr. Tsang reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, Lucence, Novartis, Pfizer, and Veracyte (honoraria); De Novo (consulting or advisory roles); and Pfizer (grant panel reviewer).

For breast cancer survivors harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations, the prospect of future pregnancy often raises concerns because of limited data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in this population. However, results from a large international study presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress provide reassuring evidence that ART, such as in vitro fertilization, can be safely used by BRCA1/2 mutation carriers previously treated for breast cancer.

“Our primary aim was to evaluate the safety profile of ART in this high-risk population by comparing maternal and fetal outcomes between those who conceived spontaneously versus those using ART,” explained Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, during his talk at the conference. “We found no statistically significant differences in pregnancy complications or fetal abnormalities.” Dr. Lambertini is an associate professor and medical oncologist at the University of Genova and IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
 

Unmet Fertility Needs for Women With Breast Cancer

With the rising rates of early-onset breast cancer and improved survival outcomes with new therapies, the number of long-term breast cancer survivors is increasing. Fertility preservation and future reproductive choices are important considerations for young patients with breast cancer, especially for high-risk patients carrying pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. During his talk, Dr. Lambertini explained that defects in DNA damage repair due to BRCA1/2 mutations, in addition to chemotherapy after breast cancer diagnosis, can lead to premature menopause.

According to Dr. Lambertini, physicians face challenges in counseling these patients regarding the potential risks and benefits of pursuing pregnancy after cancer treatment because of the limited evidence available on the safety of ART in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

“Clinicians have to counsel BRCA carriers based on very limited data about the safety of pursuing pregnancy with ART after a breast cancer diagnosis,” he said during his presentation.
 

Study Design and Patient Population

The retrospective cohort study pooled data from 78 centers worldwide to explore ART outcomes in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. The analysis included 4732 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 40 years or younger, all harboring a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant.

Among these high-risk patients, 543 became pregnant after completing cancer treatment; of these, 436 conceived naturally and 107 used ART. In the ART group, 45.5% underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation at breast cancer diagnosis, 33.3% underwent ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization after cancer treatment, and 21.2% underwent embryo transfer following oocyte donation.

Dr. Janice Tsang, MD, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, highlighted that this is the largest study focusing on ART safety in young patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. “With over 500 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers studied across nearly 80 sites, the cohort analysis had sufficient statistical power and global representation to detect potential safety signals with ART utilization, unlike prior smaller studies,” she said. Dr. Tsang, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Lambertini.
 

No Increased Risks for Pregnancy and Fetal Outcomes

Although women using ART had slightly higher miscarriage rates (11.3% versus 8.8%) and lower rates of induced abortion (0.9% versus 8.3%) than women with spontaneous conceptions, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of pregnancy complications, delivery complications, or congenital abnormalities between those who received ART and those who conceived naturally.

Dr. Lambertini explained that variations in baseline characteristics, such as age, may have contributed to differences in miscarriage rates.

“Patients in the ART group tended to be older at the time of conception, with a median age of 37.1 years, compared with 34.3 years in the spontaneous pregnancy group,” he said, during his presentation. Women in the ART group also more frequently had hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (43.4% versus 30.8%) and longer median time from diagnosis to conception (4.2 versus 3.3 years).
 

No Adverse Effects on Breast Cancer Prognosis

At a median follow-up of 5.2 years from conception, there was no detrimental effect of ART on disease-free survival for carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants who were treated for breast cancer. The ART group showed 13 (13.1%) recurrence events, compared with 118 (27.1%) recurrences in the spontaneous pregnancy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.33; P = .147).

“The risk of cancer recurrence was comparable between those using and not using ART to become pregnant after their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the small number of recurrence events in the ART group mostly involved locoregional recurrences,” Dr. Lambertini noted during his talk.

Moreover, breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival appeared to be similar between the two groups, although the small number of deaths precluded the conduction of formal analysis.

“These survival data suggest that utilizing ART does not appear to negatively impact the prognosis or course of the underlying breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said during the discussion.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Work

According to Dr. Lambertini, these results are incredibly valuable for clinicians counseling young breast cancer survivors with pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations who wish to have biological children.

“Given the interest of patients in having their own family and for some of them in avoiding the transmission of the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, our results are critical in improving the oncofertility counseling of young women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Lambertini during his presentation. “We can reassure patients that pursuing ART does not appear to worsen their cancer prognosis or compromise pregnancy outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions.”

During her discussion session, Dr. Tsang echoed the clinical implications of these findings, emphasizing that, by incorporating this evidence into clinical practice, healthcare providers can better support patients in making informed choices regarding fertility preservation and family planning after cancer treatment.

“Though this study is [retrospective] with a relatively small number, these real-world findings make a major contribution to our limited evidence base on ART safety for cancer survivors carrying BRCA1/2 mutations,” she said.

She cautioned, however, that there remain several unanswered questions and uncertainties. “We need prospective data with a larger sample size to confirm the safety of ART in this population, as well as studies to assess whether different types of ART have different safety profiles.”

Dr. Lambertini concluded his talk by saying, “While waiting for prospective studies to confirm our results, fertility preservation at diagnosis of early breast cancer should be offered to all women interested in future fertility, including BRCA carriers.”

Dr. Lambertini reported financial relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini (consulting or advisory roles); Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, Dalichi Sankyo, Gilead, Menarini (honoraria); Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche (travel support); and Gilead (research funding to the institution). Dr. Tsang reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, Lucence, Novartis, Pfizer, and Veracyte (honoraria); De Novo (consulting or advisory roles); and Pfizer (grant panel reviewer).

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tarlatamab-dlle (Imdelltra) for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy.

Tarlatamab is a first-in-class bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) that binds delta-like ligand 3 on the surface of cells, including tumor cells, and CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells. It causes T-cell activation, release of inflammatory cytokines, and lysis of DLL3-expressing cells, according to labeling. 

Approval was based on data from 99 patients in the DeLLphi-301 trial with relapsed/refractory extensive-stage SCLC who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases, interstitial lung disease, noninfectious pneumonitis, and active immunodeficiency were excluded. 

The overall response rate was 40%, and median duration of response 9.7 months. The overall response rate was 52% in 27 patients with platinum-resistant SCLC and 31% in 42 with platinum-sensitive disease. 

Continued approval may depend on verification of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

Labeling includes a box warning of serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. 

The most common adverse events, occurring in 20% or more of patients, were cytokine release syndrome, fatigue, pyrexia, dysgeusia, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, anemia, and nausea. 

The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities included decreased lymphocytes, decreased sodium, increased uric acid, decreased total neutrophils, decreased hemoglobin, increased activated partial thromboplastin time, and decreased potassium.

The starting dose is 1 mg given intravenously over 1 hour on the first day of the first cycle followed by 10 mg on day 8 and day 15 of the first cycle, then every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master’s degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award-winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining Medscape. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow. Email: aotto@mdedge.com

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tarlatamab-dlle (Imdelltra) for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy.

Tarlatamab is a first-in-class bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) that binds delta-like ligand 3 on the surface of cells, including tumor cells, and CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells. It causes T-cell activation, release of inflammatory cytokines, and lysis of DLL3-expressing cells, according to labeling. 

Approval was based on data from 99 patients in the DeLLphi-301 trial with relapsed/refractory extensive-stage SCLC who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases, interstitial lung disease, noninfectious pneumonitis, and active immunodeficiency were excluded. 

The overall response rate was 40%, and median duration of response 9.7 months. The overall response rate was 52% in 27 patients with platinum-resistant SCLC and 31% in 42 with platinum-sensitive disease. 

Continued approval may depend on verification of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

Labeling includes a box warning of serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. 

The most common adverse events, occurring in 20% or more of patients, were cytokine release syndrome, fatigue, pyrexia, dysgeusia, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, anemia, and nausea. 

The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities included decreased lymphocytes, decreased sodium, increased uric acid, decreased total neutrophils, decreased hemoglobin, increased activated partial thromboplastin time, and decreased potassium.

The starting dose is 1 mg given intravenously over 1 hour on the first day of the first cycle followed by 10 mg on day 8 and day 15 of the first cycle, then every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master’s degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award-winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining Medscape. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow. Email: aotto@mdedge.com

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tarlatamab-dlle (Imdelltra) for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy.

Tarlatamab is a first-in-class bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) that binds delta-like ligand 3 on the surface of cells, including tumor cells, and CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells. It causes T-cell activation, release of inflammatory cytokines, and lysis of DLL3-expressing cells, according to labeling. 

Approval was based on data from 99 patients in the DeLLphi-301 trial with relapsed/refractory extensive-stage SCLC who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases, interstitial lung disease, noninfectious pneumonitis, and active immunodeficiency were excluded. 

The overall response rate was 40%, and median duration of response 9.7 months. The overall response rate was 52% in 27 patients with platinum-resistant SCLC and 31% in 42 with platinum-sensitive disease. 

Continued approval may depend on verification of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

Labeling includes a box warning of serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. 

The most common adverse events, occurring in 20% or more of patients, were cytokine release syndrome, fatigue, pyrexia, dysgeusia, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, anemia, and nausea. 

The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities included decreased lymphocytes, decreased sodium, increased uric acid, decreased total neutrophils, decreased hemoglobin, increased activated partial thromboplastin time, and decreased potassium.

The starting dose is 1 mg given intravenously over 1 hour on the first day of the first cycle followed by 10 mg on day 8 and day 15 of the first cycle, then every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master’s degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award-winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining Medscape. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow. Email: aotto@mdedge.com

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have relapsed within 12 months of their last curative treatment does not improve their survival, results of the IMpassion132 trial show.

Our results “highlight the importance of recognizing TNBC heterogeneity, especially in the first-line setting” said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, who presented the study at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

“These patients have a dismal prognosis and represent a high unmet need,” she added. 

The current findings follow those from the IMpassion130 trial, which showed that the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy offered no survival benefit in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic TNBC despite a progression-free survival benefit on interim analysis.

Rapidly relapsing TNBC “represents one of most challenging clinical situations” because it is aggressive and “intrinsically resistant to standard therapies,” said Dr. Dent. It is also more common in younger patients with large primary tumors and no BRCA alterations.

“Most importantly, however, is that most trials actually exclude these patients,” she noted, “posing a real challenge for us in clinical practice.”

IMpassion132 enrolled 594 patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC who had experienced disease progression more than 12 months after their last treatment for early TNBC with curative intent.

Patients had received prior anthracycline and taxane therapy for but no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease.

Study participants were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with carboplatin-gemcitabine or capecitabine plus atezolizumab or placebo, with treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival.

Initially, all patients with TNBC who met the study criteria were enrolled in the randomized, phase 3, double-blinded trial; however, the trial was then amended to include only PD-L1–positive patients after the results of IMpassion130 “clearly showed us that the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibition were largely driven by those patients,” Dr. Dent explained.

The 354 patients with PD-L1–positive disease were “young,” she added, with a median age of 48 years. The youngest was 23 years old.

The majority (66%-69%) had a disease-free interval of less than 6 months after treatment with curative intent. Lung and/or liver metastases were present in 60%-62% of patients, and 18% had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.

After a median follow-up of 9.8 months, overall survival was a median of 12.1 months in the atezolizumab group vs 11.2 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .59).

A similar result was seen when looking at the modified intention-to-treat population, and when stratifying the patients by prespecified subgroup.

Dr. Dent pointed out that in the placebo group, patients treated with capecitabine had a median overall survival of 12.6 months vs 9.9 months in those given carboplatin-gemcitabine , which she described as “hypothesis generating” because “prior therapy may trigger a variety of resistance mechanisms.”

The disease-free interval also seemed to play a role in the placebo group. Patients who had a disease-free interval of 6 or more months prior to study enrollment had a median overall survival of 12.8 months vs 9.4 months in those with an interval of less than 6 months.

There were no significant differences in progression-free survival or duration of overall response between the atezolizumab and placebo groups.

“In terms of the safety data, clearly we’re getting better at identifying immune checkpoint inhibition toxicities and initiating therapies for these toxicities earlier,” Dr. Dent said, because there were “no new safety signals.”

The rate of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar between patients given atezolizumab and those assigned to placebo, at 65% vs 62%. Rates of grade 5 events were identical, at 1%.

Commenting on the study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, questioned the role for immunotherapy in patients with TNBC who experience early relapse. 

This is not the first trial to fail to show a benefit in this space, she said. Collectively, these results make “me think that these tumors are pretty immunologically cold, making them less likely to benefit from checkpoint inhibition.” 

The patients that do relapse, “have highly treatment refractory disease,” and “we need to think about other novel therapeutic strategies for this population,” she told this news organization.

IMpassion132 nevertheless represents a “unique opportunity to better understand the biology of these rapidly relapsing tumors, and hopefully use this information to develop more novel treatment approaches for this population,” she said.

“That being said, I do think that this is going to become an even more challenging area,” Dr. Tolaney said. “In the modern era, these patients are receiving multi-agent chemotherapy with preoperative checkpoint inhibition, and many then go on to receive additional systemic treatment in the adjuvant setting.”

The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.

Dr. Dent declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Tolaney declares relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Novartis, Nanonstring, and Cyclacel.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have relapsed within 12 months of their last curative treatment does not improve their survival, results of the IMpassion132 trial show.

Our results “highlight the importance of recognizing TNBC heterogeneity, especially in the first-line setting” said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, who presented the study at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

“These patients have a dismal prognosis and represent a high unmet need,” she added. 

The current findings follow those from the IMpassion130 trial, which showed that the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy offered no survival benefit in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic TNBC despite a progression-free survival benefit on interim analysis.

Rapidly relapsing TNBC “represents one of most challenging clinical situations” because it is aggressive and “intrinsically resistant to standard therapies,” said Dr. Dent. It is also more common in younger patients with large primary tumors and no BRCA alterations.

“Most importantly, however, is that most trials actually exclude these patients,” she noted, “posing a real challenge for us in clinical practice.”

IMpassion132 enrolled 594 patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC who had experienced disease progression more than 12 months after their last treatment for early TNBC with curative intent.

Patients had received prior anthracycline and taxane therapy for but no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease.

Study participants were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with carboplatin-gemcitabine or capecitabine plus atezolizumab or placebo, with treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival.

Initially, all patients with TNBC who met the study criteria were enrolled in the randomized, phase 3, double-blinded trial; however, the trial was then amended to include only PD-L1–positive patients after the results of IMpassion130 “clearly showed us that the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibition were largely driven by those patients,” Dr. Dent explained.

The 354 patients with PD-L1–positive disease were “young,” she added, with a median age of 48 years. The youngest was 23 years old.

The majority (66%-69%) had a disease-free interval of less than 6 months after treatment with curative intent. Lung and/or liver metastases were present in 60%-62% of patients, and 18% had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.

After a median follow-up of 9.8 months, overall survival was a median of 12.1 months in the atezolizumab group vs 11.2 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .59).

A similar result was seen when looking at the modified intention-to-treat population, and when stratifying the patients by prespecified subgroup.

Dr. Dent pointed out that in the placebo group, patients treated with capecitabine had a median overall survival of 12.6 months vs 9.9 months in those given carboplatin-gemcitabine , which she described as “hypothesis generating” because “prior therapy may trigger a variety of resistance mechanisms.”

The disease-free interval also seemed to play a role in the placebo group. Patients who had a disease-free interval of 6 or more months prior to study enrollment had a median overall survival of 12.8 months vs 9.4 months in those with an interval of less than 6 months.

There were no significant differences in progression-free survival or duration of overall response between the atezolizumab and placebo groups.

“In terms of the safety data, clearly we’re getting better at identifying immune checkpoint inhibition toxicities and initiating therapies for these toxicities earlier,” Dr. Dent said, because there were “no new safety signals.”

The rate of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar between patients given atezolizumab and those assigned to placebo, at 65% vs 62%. Rates of grade 5 events were identical, at 1%.

Commenting on the study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, questioned the role for immunotherapy in patients with TNBC who experience early relapse. 

This is not the first trial to fail to show a benefit in this space, she said. Collectively, these results make “me think that these tumors are pretty immunologically cold, making them less likely to benefit from checkpoint inhibition.” 

The patients that do relapse, “have highly treatment refractory disease,” and “we need to think about other novel therapeutic strategies for this population,” she told this news organization.

IMpassion132 nevertheless represents a “unique opportunity to better understand the biology of these rapidly relapsing tumors, and hopefully use this information to develop more novel treatment approaches for this population,” she said.

“That being said, I do think that this is going to become an even more challenging area,” Dr. Tolaney said. “In the modern era, these patients are receiving multi-agent chemotherapy with preoperative checkpoint inhibition, and many then go on to receive additional systemic treatment in the adjuvant setting.”

The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.

Dr. Dent declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Tolaney declares relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Novartis, Nanonstring, and Cyclacel.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have relapsed within 12 months of their last curative treatment does not improve their survival, results of the IMpassion132 trial show.

Our results “highlight the importance of recognizing TNBC heterogeneity, especially in the first-line setting” said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, who presented the study at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

“These patients have a dismal prognosis and represent a high unmet need,” she added. 

The current findings follow those from the IMpassion130 trial, which showed that the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy offered no survival benefit in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic TNBC despite a progression-free survival benefit on interim analysis.

Rapidly relapsing TNBC “represents one of most challenging clinical situations” because it is aggressive and “intrinsically resistant to standard therapies,” said Dr. Dent. It is also more common in younger patients with large primary tumors and no BRCA alterations.

“Most importantly, however, is that most trials actually exclude these patients,” she noted, “posing a real challenge for us in clinical practice.”

IMpassion132 enrolled 594 patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC who had experienced disease progression more than 12 months after their last treatment for early TNBC with curative intent.

Patients had received prior anthracycline and taxane therapy for but no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease.

Study participants were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with carboplatin-gemcitabine or capecitabine plus atezolizumab or placebo, with treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival.

Initially, all patients with TNBC who met the study criteria were enrolled in the randomized, phase 3, double-blinded trial; however, the trial was then amended to include only PD-L1–positive patients after the results of IMpassion130 “clearly showed us that the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibition were largely driven by those patients,” Dr. Dent explained.

The 354 patients with PD-L1–positive disease were “young,” she added, with a median age of 48 years. The youngest was 23 years old.

The majority (66%-69%) had a disease-free interval of less than 6 months after treatment with curative intent. Lung and/or liver metastases were present in 60%-62% of patients, and 18% had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.

After a median follow-up of 9.8 months, overall survival was a median of 12.1 months in the atezolizumab group vs 11.2 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .59).

A similar result was seen when looking at the modified intention-to-treat population, and when stratifying the patients by prespecified subgroup.

Dr. Dent pointed out that in the placebo group, patients treated with capecitabine had a median overall survival of 12.6 months vs 9.9 months in those given carboplatin-gemcitabine , which she described as “hypothesis generating” because “prior therapy may trigger a variety of resistance mechanisms.”

The disease-free interval also seemed to play a role in the placebo group. Patients who had a disease-free interval of 6 or more months prior to study enrollment had a median overall survival of 12.8 months vs 9.4 months in those with an interval of less than 6 months.

There were no significant differences in progression-free survival or duration of overall response between the atezolizumab and placebo groups.

“In terms of the safety data, clearly we’re getting better at identifying immune checkpoint inhibition toxicities and initiating therapies for these toxicities earlier,” Dr. Dent said, because there were “no new safety signals.”

The rate of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar between patients given atezolizumab and those assigned to placebo, at 65% vs 62%. Rates of grade 5 events were identical, at 1%.

Commenting on the study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, questioned the role for immunotherapy in patients with TNBC who experience early relapse. 

This is not the first trial to fail to show a benefit in this space, she said. Collectively, these results make “me think that these tumors are pretty immunologically cold, making them less likely to benefit from checkpoint inhibition.” 

The patients that do relapse, “have highly treatment refractory disease,” and “we need to think about other novel therapeutic strategies for this population,” she told this news organization.

IMpassion132 nevertheless represents a “unique opportunity to better understand the biology of these rapidly relapsing tumors, and hopefully use this information to develop more novel treatment approaches for this population,” she said.

“That being said, I do think that this is going to become an even more challenging area,” Dr. Tolaney said. “In the modern era, these patients are receiving multi-agent chemotherapy with preoperative checkpoint inhibition, and many then go on to receive additional systemic treatment in the adjuvant setting.”

The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.

Dr. Dent declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Tolaney declares relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Novartis, Nanonstring, and Cyclacel.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Juno Therapeutics /Bristol Myers Squibb) for adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who have received two or more prior lines of systemic therapy.

The approval broadens the use of the CAR T-cell therapy for follicular lymphoma. Previous approval was limited to relapsed/refractory grade 3B disease. Lisocabtagene maraleucel also carries relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma and lymphocytic leukemia indications.

The new approval was based on the phase 2 single-arm TRANSCEND FL trial in 94 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including an anti-CD20 antibody and an alkylating agent.

Adequate bone marrow function and a performance score of 0-1 were required.

Patients received a single dose 2-7 days after completing lymphodepleting chemotherapy.

The overall response rate was 95.7%. The median duration of response was not reached after a median follow-up of 16.8 months.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were cytokine release syndrome, headache, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, constipation, and fever.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel is available only through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program due to the risk for fatal cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicities.

A single treatment is almost a half million dollars, according to drugs.com.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Juno Therapeutics /Bristol Myers Squibb) for adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who have received two or more prior lines of systemic therapy.

The approval broadens the use of the CAR T-cell therapy for follicular lymphoma. Previous approval was limited to relapsed/refractory grade 3B disease. Lisocabtagene maraleucel also carries relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma and lymphocytic leukemia indications.

The new approval was based on the phase 2 single-arm TRANSCEND FL trial in 94 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including an anti-CD20 antibody and an alkylating agent.

Adequate bone marrow function and a performance score of 0-1 were required.

Patients received a single dose 2-7 days after completing lymphodepleting chemotherapy.

The overall response rate was 95.7%. The median duration of response was not reached after a median follow-up of 16.8 months.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were cytokine release syndrome, headache, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, constipation, and fever.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel is available only through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program due to the risk for fatal cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicities.

A single treatment is almost a half million dollars, according to drugs.com.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Juno Therapeutics /Bristol Myers Squibb) for adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who have received two or more prior lines of systemic therapy.

The approval broadens the use of the CAR T-cell therapy for follicular lymphoma. Previous approval was limited to relapsed/refractory grade 3B disease. Lisocabtagene maraleucel also carries relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma and lymphocytic leukemia indications.

The new approval was based on the phase 2 single-arm TRANSCEND FL trial in 94 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including an anti-CD20 antibody and an alkylating agent.

Adequate bone marrow function and a performance score of 0-1 were required.

Patients received a single dose 2-7 days after completing lymphodepleting chemotherapy.

The overall response rate was 95.7%. The median duration of response was not reached after a median follow-up of 16.8 months.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were cytokine release syndrome, headache, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, constipation, and fever.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel is available only through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program due to the risk for fatal cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicities.

A single treatment is almost a half million dollars, according to drugs.com.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.

That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.

The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.

More than a year after tucatinib-trastuzumab’s approval, the dual HER2 blockade is bringing substantial clinical benefits to a population with few therapeutic options.
 

Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer

Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Real-World Setting

Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.

“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.

Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.

“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
 

Why It Works

In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.

“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.

“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.

“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.

Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
 

Barriers to Treatment

Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.

The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.

“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.

The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.

While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.

Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.

“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275 dollars,” she said.
 

What’s Next

In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.

MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.

That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.

The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.

More than a year after tucatinib-trastuzumab’s approval, the dual HER2 blockade is bringing substantial clinical benefits to a population with few therapeutic options.
 

Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer

Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Real-World Setting

Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.

“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.

Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.

“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
 

Why It Works

In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.

“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.

“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.

“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.

Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
 

Barriers to Treatment

Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.

The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.

“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.

The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.

While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.

Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.

“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275 dollars,” she said.
 

What’s Next

In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.

MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.

That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.

The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.

More than a year after tucatinib-trastuzumab’s approval, the dual HER2 blockade is bringing substantial clinical benefits to a population with few therapeutic options.
 

Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer

Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Real-World Setting

Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.

“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.

Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.

“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
 

Why It Works

In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.

“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.

“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.

“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.

Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
 

Barriers to Treatment

Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.

The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.

“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.

The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.

While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.

Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.

“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275 dollars,” she said.
 

What’s Next

In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.

MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ColoSense (Geneoscopy, Inc), a multitarget stool RNA (mt-sRNA) test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in adults aged 45 years or older who are at average risk for CRC.

ColoSense, which had breakthrough device designation by the FDA, detects colorectal neoplasia–associated RNA markers and the presence of occult hemoglobin in human stool. 

A positive ColoSense test result may indicate the presence of CRC, advanced adenomas, or serrated precancerous lesions and should be followed by a colonoscopy, the company said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was based on results of the CRC-PREVENT trial, which evaluated the ColoSense mt-sRNA test in a diverse group of adults undergoing colonoscopy. 

FDA_approved_web.jpg

The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

Among all average-risk individuals, the sensitivity of the mt-sRNA test was 93% for CRC, 100% for early (stage I) CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas. In a subgroup of those aged 45-49 years, the sensitivity was 100% for CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas.

The trial results were presented last year at the American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting and simultaneously published in JAMA .

CRC is the second deadliest cancer in the United States, and adherence rates to recommended colonoscopies as a screening modality have remained consistently low at roughly 60%. 

Cases of CRC are also rising among people younger than age 50 years, leading the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend initiation of CRC screening at age 45 years.

“The growing number of adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer underscores the urgent need for innovative approaches in screening. It’s essential to eliminate obstacles and broaden the availability of screening methods for healthcare providers and patients,” Anjee Davis, president of Fight CRC, said in the news release. 

“We hope that introducing new FDA-approved diagnostic tools, including stool-based tests like ColoSense, will help to advance access and increase screening rates, ultimately reducing the impact of late-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses,” Ms. Davis said. 

The company plans to make ColoSense available in the United States later this year or early in 2025.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ColoSense (Geneoscopy, Inc), a multitarget stool RNA (mt-sRNA) test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in adults aged 45 years or older who are at average risk for CRC.

ColoSense, which had breakthrough device designation by the FDA, detects colorectal neoplasia–associated RNA markers and the presence of occult hemoglobin in human stool. 

A positive ColoSense test result may indicate the presence of CRC, advanced adenomas, or serrated precancerous lesions and should be followed by a colonoscopy, the company said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was based on results of the CRC-PREVENT trial, which evaluated the ColoSense mt-sRNA test in a diverse group of adults undergoing colonoscopy. 

FDA_approved_web.jpg

The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

Among all average-risk individuals, the sensitivity of the mt-sRNA test was 93% for CRC, 100% for early (stage I) CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas. In a subgroup of those aged 45-49 years, the sensitivity was 100% for CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas.

The trial results were presented last year at the American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting and simultaneously published in JAMA .

CRC is the second deadliest cancer in the United States, and adherence rates to recommended colonoscopies as a screening modality have remained consistently low at roughly 60%. 

Cases of CRC are also rising among people younger than age 50 years, leading the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend initiation of CRC screening at age 45 years.

“The growing number of adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer underscores the urgent need for innovative approaches in screening. It’s essential to eliminate obstacles and broaden the availability of screening methods for healthcare providers and patients,” Anjee Davis, president of Fight CRC, said in the news release. 

“We hope that introducing new FDA-approved diagnostic tools, including stool-based tests like ColoSense, will help to advance access and increase screening rates, ultimately reducing the impact of late-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses,” Ms. Davis said. 

The company plans to make ColoSense available in the United States later this year or early in 2025.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ColoSense (Geneoscopy, Inc), a multitarget stool RNA (mt-sRNA) test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in adults aged 45 years or older who are at average risk for CRC.

ColoSense, which had breakthrough device designation by the FDA, detects colorectal neoplasia–associated RNA markers and the presence of occult hemoglobin in human stool. 

A positive ColoSense test result may indicate the presence of CRC, advanced adenomas, or serrated precancerous lesions and should be followed by a colonoscopy, the company said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was based on results of the CRC-PREVENT trial, which evaluated the ColoSense mt-sRNA test in a diverse group of adults undergoing colonoscopy. 

FDA_approved_web.jpg

The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

Among all average-risk individuals, the sensitivity of the mt-sRNA test was 93% for CRC, 100% for early (stage I) CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas. In a subgroup of those aged 45-49 years, the sensitivity was 100% for CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas.

The trial results were presented last year at the American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting and simultaneously published in JAMA .

CRC is the second deadliest cancer in the United States, and adherence rates to recommended colonoscopies as a screening modality have remained consistently low at roughly 60%. 

Cases of CRC are also rising among people younger than age 50 years, leading the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend initiation of CRC screening at age 45 years.

“The growing number of adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer underscores the urgent need for innovative approaches in screening. It’s essential to eliminate obstacles and broaden the availability of screening methods for healthcare providers and patients,” Anjee Davis, president of Fight CRC, said in the news release. 

“We hope that introducing new FDA-approved diagnostic tools, including stool-based tests like ColoSense, will help to advance access and increase screening rates, ultimately reducing the impact of late-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses,” Ms. Davis said. 

The company plans to make ColoSense available in the United States later this year or early in 2025.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hysteroscopy is a crucial examination for the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. In Brazil, women with postmenopausal bleeding who need to undergo this procedure in the public health system wait in line alongside patients with less severe complaints. Until now, there has been no system to prioritize patients at high risk for cancer. But this situation may change, thanks to a Brazilian study published in February in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. 

Researchers from the Municipal Hospital of Vila Santa Catarina in São Paulo, a public unit managed by Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, have developed the Endometrial Malignancy Prediction System (EMPS), a nomogram to identify patients at high risk for endometrial cancer and prioritize them in the hysteroscopy waiting list.

Bruna Bottura, MD, a gynecologist and obstetrician at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein and the study’s lead author, told this news organization that the idea to create the nomogram arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. “We noticed that ... when outpatient clinics resumed, we were seeing many patients for intrauterine device (IUD) removal. We thought it was unfair for a patient with postmenopausal bleeding, who has a chance of having cancer, to have to wait in the same line as a patient needing IUD removal,” she said. This realization motivated the development of the tool, which was overseen by Renato Moretti-Marques, MD, PhD.
 

The EMPS Score

The team conducted a retrospective case-control study involving 1945 patients with suspected endometrial cancer who had undergone diagnostic hysteroscopy at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein between March 2019 and March 2022. Among these patients, 107 were diagnosed with precursor lesions or endometrial cancer on the basis of biopsy. The other 1838 participants, who had had cancer ruled out by biopsy, formed the control group.

Through bivariate and multivariate linear regression analysis, the authors determined that the presence or absence of hypertension, diabetes, postmenopausal bleeding, endometrial polyps, uterine volume, number of pregnancies, body mass index, age, and endometrial thickness were the main risk factors for endometrial cancer diagnosis.

On the basis of these data, the group developed the EMPS nomogram. Physicians can use it to classify the patient’s risk according to the sum of the scores assigned to each of these factors.

The Table shows the classification system. The scoring tables available in the supplemental materials of the article can be accessed here.

crabrohephunonesobogopraphawadramopuchashopusushawebraclabespivatocrauuvacreclishustucidutreclauopominithugecr

Focus on Primary Care

The goal is not to remove patients classified as low risk from the hysteroscopy waiting list, but rather to prioritize those classified as high risk to get the examination, according to Dr. Bottura.

At the Municipal Hospital of Vila Santa Catarina, the average wait time for hysteroscopy was 120 days. But because the unit is focused on oncologic patients and has a high level of organization, this time is much shorter than observed in other parts of Brazil’s National Health Service, said Dr. Bottura. “Many patients are on the hysteroscopy waiting list for 2 years. Considering patients in more advanced stages [of endometrial cancer], it makes a difference,” she said.

Although the nomogram was developed in tertiary care, it is aimed at professionals working in primary care. The reason is that physicians from primary care health units refer women with clinical indications for hysteroscopy to specialized national health services, such as the Municipal Hospital of Vila Santa Catarina. “Our goal is the primary sector, to enable the clinic to refer this high-risk patient sooner. By the time you reach the tertiary sector, where hysteroscopies are performed, all patients will undergo the procedure. Usually, it is not the hospitals that predetermine the line, but rather the health clinics,” she explained.

The researchers hope to continue the research, starting with a prospective study. “We intend to apply and evaluate the tool within our own service to observe whether any patient with a high [EMPS] score patient ended up waiting too long to be referred. In fact, this will be a system validation step,” said Dr. Bottura.

In parallel, the team has a proposal to take the tool to health clinics in the same region as the study hospital. “We know this involves changing the protocol at a national level, so it’s more challenging,” said Dr. Bottura. She added that the final goal is to create a calculator, possibly an app, that allows primary care doctors to calculate the risk score in the office. This calculator could enable risk classification to be linked to patient referrals.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hysteroscopy is a crucial examination for the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. In Brazil, women with postmenopausal bleeding who need to undergo this procedure in the public health system wait in line alongside patients with less severe complaints. Until now, there has been no system to prioritize patients at high risk for cancer. But this situation may change, thanks to a Brazilian study published in February in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. 

Researchers from the Municipal Hospital of Vila Santa Catarina in São Paulo, a public unit managed by Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, have developed the Endometrial Malignancy Prediction System (EMPS), a nomogram to identify patients at high risk for endometrial cancer and prioritize them in the hysteroscopy waiting list.

Bruna Bottura, MD, a gynecologist and obstetrician at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein and the study’s lead author, told this news organization that the idea to create the nomogram arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. “We noticed that ... when outpatient clinics resumed, we were seeing many patients for intrauterine device (IUD) removal. We thought it was unfair for a patient with postmenopausal bleeding, who has a chance of having cancer, to have to wait in the same line as a patient needing IUD removal,” she said. This realization motivated the development of the tool, which was overseen by Renato Moretti-Marques, MD, PhD.
 

The EMPS Score

The team conducted a retrospective case-control study involving 1945 patients with suspected endometrial cancer who had undergone diagnostic hysteroscopy at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein between March 2019 and March 2022. Among these patients, 107 were diagnosed with precursor lesions or endometrial cancer on the basis of biopsy. The other 1838 participants, who had had cancer ruled out by biopsy, formed the control group.

Through bivariate and multivariate linear regression analysis, the authors determined that the presence or absence of hypertension, diabetes, postmenopausal bleeding, endometrial polyps, uterine volume, number of pregnancies, body mass index, age, and endometrial thickness were the main risk factors for endometrial cancer diagnosis.

On the basis of these data, the group developed the EMPS nomogram. Physicians can use it to classify the patient’s risk according to the sum of the scores assigned to each of these factors.

The Table shows the classification system. The scoring tables available in the supplemental materials of the article can be accessed here.

crabrohephunonesobogopraphawadramopuchashopusushawebraclabespivatocrauuvacreclishustucidutreclauopominithugecr

Focus on Primary Care

The goal is not to remove patients classified as low risk from the hysteroscopy waiting list, but rather to prioritize those classified as high risk to get the examination, according to Dr. Bottura.

At the Municipal Hospital of Vila Santa Catarina, the average wait time for hysteroscopy was 120 days. But because the unit is focused on oncologic patients and has a high level of organization, this time is much shorter than observed in other parts of Brazil’s National Health Service, said Dr. Bottura. “Many patients are on the hysteroscopy waiting list for 2 years. Considering patients in more advanced stages [of endometrial cancer], it makes a difference,” she said.

Although the nomogram was developed in tertiary care, it is aimed at professionals working in primary care. The reason is that physicians from primary care health units refer women with clinical indications for hysteroscopy to specialized national health services, such as the Municipal Hospital of Vila Santa Catarina. “Our goal is the primary sector, to enable the clinic to refer this high-risk patient sooner. By the time you reach the tertiary sector, where hysteroscopies are performed, all patients will undergo the procedure. Usually, it is not the hospitals that predetermine the line, but rather the health clinics,” she explained.

The researchers hope to continue the research, starting with a prospective study. “We intend to apply and evaluate the tool within our own service to observe whether any patient with a high [EMPS] score patient ended up waiting too long to be referred. In fact, this will be a system validation step,” said Dr. Bottura.

In parallel, the team has a proposal to take the tool to health clinics in the same region as the study hospital. “We know this involves changing the protocol at a national level, so it’s more challenging,” said Dr. Bottura. She added that the final goal is to create a calculator, possibly an app, that allows primary care doctors to calculate the risk score in the office. This calculator could enable risk classification to be linked to patient referrals.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hysteroscopy is a crucial examination for the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. In Brazil, women with postmenopausal bleeding who need to undergo this procedure in the public health system wait in line alongside patients with less severe complaints. Until now, there has been no system to prioritize patients at high risk for cancer. But this situation may change, thanks to a Brazilian study published in February in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. 

Researchers from the Municipal Hospital of Vila Santa Catarina in São Paulo, a public unit managed by Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, have developed the Endometrial Malignancy Prediction System (EMPS), a nomogram to identify patients at high risk for endometrial cancer and prioritize them in the hysteroscopy waiting list.

Bruna Bottura, MD, a gynecologist and obstetrician at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein and the study’s lead author, told this news organization that the idea to create the nomogram arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. “We noticed that ... when outpatient clinics resumed, we were seeing many patients for intrauterine device (IUD) removal. We thought it was unfair for a patient with postmenopausal bleeding, who has a chance of having cancer, to have to wait in the same line as a patient needing IUD removal,” she said. This realization motivated the development of the tool, which was overseen by Renato Moretti-Marques, MD, PhD.
 

The EMPS Score

The team conducted a retrospective case-control study involving 1945 patients with suspected endometrial cancer who had undergone diagnostic hysteroscopy at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein between March 2019 and March 2022. Among these patients, 107 were diagnosed with precursor lesions or endometrial cancer on the basis of biopsy. The other 1838 participants, who had had cancer ruled out by biopsy, formed the control group.

Through bivariate and multivariate linear regression analysis, the authors determined that the presence or absence of hypertension, diabetes, postmenopausal bleeding, endometrial polyps, uterine volume, number of pregnancies, body mass index, age, and endometrial thickness were the main risk factors for endometrial cancer diagnosis.

On the basis of these data, the group developed the EMPS nomogram. Physicians can use it to classify the patient’s risk according to the sum of the scores assigned to each of these factors.

The Table shows the classification system. The scoring tables available in the supplemental materials of the article can be accessed here.

crabrohephunonesobogopraphawadramopuchashopusushawebraclabespivatocrauuvacreclishustucidutreclauopominithugecr

Focus on Primary Care

The goal is not to remove patients classified as low risk from the hysteroscopy waiting list, but rather to prioritize those classified as high risk to get the examination, according to Dr. Bottura.

At the Municipal Hospital of Vila Santa Catarina, the average wait time for hysteroscopy was 120 days. But because the unit is focused on oncologic patients and has a high level of organization, this time is much shorter than observed in other parts of Brazil’s National Health Service, said Dr. Bottura. “Many patients are on the hysteroscopy waiting list for 2 years. Considering patients in more advanced stages [of endometrial cancer], it makes a difference,” she said.

Although the nomogram was developed in tertiary care, it is aimed at professionals working in primary care. The reason is that physicians from primary care health units refer women with clinical indications for hysteroscopy to specialized national health services, such as the Municipal Hospital of Vila Santa Catarina. “Our goal is the primary sector, to enable the clinic to refer this high-risk patient sooner. By the time you reach the tertiary sector, where hysteroscopies are performed, all patients will undergo the procedure. Usually, it is not the hospitals that predetermine the line, but rather the health clinics,” she explained.

The researchers hope to continue the research, starting with a prospective study. “We intend to apply and evaluate the tool within our own service to observe whether any patient with a high [EMPS] score patient ended up waiting too long to be referred. In fact, this will be a system validation step,” said Dr. Bottura.

In parallel, the team has a proposal to take the tool to health clinics in the same region as the study hospital. “We know this involves changing the protocol at a national level, so it’s more challenging,” said Dr. Bottura. She added that the final goal is to create a calculator, possibly an app, that allows primary care doctors to calculate the risk score in the office. This calculator could enable risk classification to be linked to patient referrals.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The topic of head and neck cancer is especially timely since the disease is evolving. A hematologist/oncologist with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) told colleagues that specialists are grappling with how to de-escalate treatment.

Molly Tokaz, MD, of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care and the University of Washington said tobacco is fading as a cause as fewer people smoke, and that human papillomavirus (HPV) is triggering more cases. HPV-positive patients have better prognoses, raising the prospect that their treatment could be adjusted.

“Instead of increasing the amount of therapy we're giving, we’re trying to peel it back,” she said. “If they’re going to respond no matter what we do, why are we going in with these huge weapons of mass destruction if we can get the same results with something more like a light infantry?”

Tokaz spoke about deescalating therapy at a May 2024 regional AVAHO meeting in Seattle that was focused on head and neck cancer. She elaborated on her presentation in an interview with Federal Practitioner. according to Tokaz, 90% of head and neck cancers are mucosal squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). HPV is associated specifically with nasopharyngeal cancer, which is distinct from SCC, and oropharyngeal cancer, which has been linked to better prognoses.

HPV-positive head and neck cancer is a unique entity with its own epidemiology, clinical prognosis, and treatment. “Patients tend to be younger without the same number of comorbid conditions,” Tokaz said. “Some of them are never smokers or light smokers. So, it's a different demographic than we’ve seen traditionally.”

The bad news is that HPV-associated head and neck cancer numbers are on the rise. Fortunately, outcomes tend to be better for the HPV-positive forms.

As for therapy for head and neck cancer, immunotherapy and targeted therapy play smaller roles than in some other cancers because the form tends to be diagnosed in early stages before metastases appear. Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation remain the major treatments. According to Tokaz’s presentation, surgery, or radiation—often with minimal adjuvant chemotherapy—can be appropriate for the earliest stage I and II cases of head and neck SCC. (She noted that HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma has its own staging system.)

Stage I and II cases make up 15% of new diagnoses and have a 5-year survival rate of > 70%. “In the earliest days, our main role was to make radiation work better and reduce it while adding a minimum amount of toxicity mutations,” she said. “Chemotherapy can help, but it’s only demonstrated improvement in overall survival in patients with positive surgical margins and extracapsular extension.”

In Stage III, IVA, and IVB cases, which make up 70% of new diagnoses, chemotherapy plus radiation is recommended. Five-year survival drops to 30% to 50%. Finally, 10% of new diagnoses are Stage IVC, which is incurable and median survival is < 1 year.

Since HPV-positive patients generally have better prognoses, oncologists are considering how to adjust their treatment. However, Tokaz notes that clinical trials have not shown a benefit from less intensive treatment in these patients. “At this point, we still treat them the same way as HPV-negative patients. But it's an ongoing area of research.”

Researchers are also exploring how to optimize regimens in patients ineligible for treatment with the chemotherapy agent cisplatin. “These folks have been traditionally excluded from clinical trials because they’re sicker,” Tokaz explained. “Researchers normally want the fittest and the best patients [in trials]. If you give a drug to someone with a lot of other comorbid conditions, they might not do as well with it, and it makes your drug look bad.”

Figuring out how to treat these patients is an especially urgent task in head and neck cancer because so many patients are frail and have comorbidities. More globally, Tokaz said the rise of HPV-related head and neck cancer highlights the importance of HPV vaccination, which is crucial for preventing cervical and anal cancer in addition to head and neck cancer. “HPV vaccination for children and young adults is crucial.”

Molly Tokaz, MD, reported no relevant financial relationships.

The topic of head and neck cancer is especially timely since the disease is evolving. A hematologist/oncologist with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) told colleagues that specialists are grappling with how to de-escalate treatment.

Molly Tokaz, MD, of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care and the University of Washington said tobacco is fading as a cause as fewer people smoke, and that human papillomavirus (HPV) is triggering more cases. HPV-positive patients have better prognoses, raising the prospect that their treatment could be adjusted.

“Instead of increasing the amount of therapy we're giving, we’re trying to peel it back,” she said. “If they’re going to respond no matter what we do, why are we going in with these huge weapons of mass destruction if we can get the same results with something more like a light infantry?”

Tokaz spoke about deescalating therapy at a May 2024 regional AVAHO meeting in Seattle that was focused on head and neck cancer. She elaborated on her presentation in an interview with Federal Practitioner. according to Tokaz, 90% of head and neck cancers are mucosal squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). HPV is associated specifically with nasopharyngeal cancer, which is distinct from SCC, and oropharyngeal cancer, which has been linked to better prognoses.

HPV-positive head and neck cancer is a unique entity with its own epidemiology, clinical prognosis, and treatment. “Patients tend to be younger without the same number of comorbid conditions,” Tokaz said. “Some of them are never smokers or light smokers. So, it's a different demographic than we’ve seen traditionally.”

The bad news is that HPV-associated head and neck cancer numbers are on the rise. Fortunately, outcomes tend to be better for the HPV-positive forms.

As for therapy for head and neck cancer, immunotherapy and targeted therapy play smaller roles than in some other cancers because the form tends to be diagnosed in early stages before metastases appear. Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation remain the major treatments. According to Tokaz’s presentation, surgery, or radiation—often with minimal adjuvant chemotherapy—can be appropriate for the earliest stage I and II cases of head and neck SCC. (She noted that HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma has its own staging system.)

Stage I and II cases make up 15% of new diagnoses and have a 5-year survival rate of > 70%. “In the earliest days, our main role was to make radiation work better and reduce it while adding a minimum amount of toxicity mutations,” she said. “Chemotherapy can help, but it’s only demonstrated improvement in overall survival in patients with positive surgical margins and extracapsular extension.”

In Stage III, IVA, and IVB cases, which make up 70% of new diagnoses, chemotherapy plus radiation is recommended. Five-year survival drops to 30% to 50%. Finally, 10% of new diagnoses are Stage IVC, which is incurable and median survival is < 1 year.

Since HPV-positive patients generally have better prognoses, oncologists are considering how to adjust their treatment. However, Tokaz notes that clinical trials have not shown a benefit from less intensive treatment in these patients. “At this point, we still treat them the same way as HPV-negative patients. But it's an ongoing area of research.”

Researchers are also exploring how to optimize regimens in patients ineligible for treatment with the chemotherapy agent cisplatin. “These folks have been traditionally excluded from clinical trials because they’re sicker,” Tokaz explained. “Researchers normally want the fittest and the best patients [in trials]. If you give a drug to someone with a lot of other comorbid conditions, they might not do as well with it, and it makes your drug look bad.”

Figuring out how to treat these patients is an especially urgent task in head and neck cancer because so many patients are frail and have comorbidities. More globally, Tokaz said the rise of HPV-related head and neck cancer highlights the importance of HPV vaccination, which is crucial for preventing cervical and anal cancer in addition to head and neck cancer. “HPV vaccination for children and young adults is crucial.”

Molly Tokaz, MD, reported no relevant financial relationships.

The topic of head and neck cancer is especially timely since the disease is evolving. A hematologist/oncologist with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) told colleagues that specialists are grappling with how to de-escalate treatment.

Molly Tokaz, MD, of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care and the University of Washington said tobacco is fading as a cause as fewer people smoke, and that human papillomavirus (HPV) is triggering more cases. HPV-positive patients have better prognoses, raising the prospect that their treatment could be adjusted.

“Instead of increasing the amount of therapy we're giving, we’re trying to peel it back,” she said. “If they’re going to respond no matter what we do, why are we going in with these huge weapons of mass destruction if we can get the same results with something more like a light infantry?”

Tokaz spoke about deescalating therapy at a May 2024 regional AVAHO meeting in Seattle that was focused on head and neck cancer. She elaborated on her presentation in an interview with Federal Practitioner. according to Tokaz, 90% of head and neck cancers are mucosal squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). HPV is associated specifically with nasopharyngeal cancer, which is distinct from SCC, and oropharyngeal cancer, which has been linked to better prognoses.

HPV-positive head and neck cancer is a unique entity with its own epidemiology, clinical prognosis, and treatment. “Patients tend to be younger without the same number of comorbid conditions,” Tokaz said. “Some of them are never smokers or light smokers. So, it's a different demographic than we’ve seen traditionally.”

The bad news is that HPV-associated head and neck cancer numbers are on the rise. Fortunately, outcomes tend to be better for the HPV-positive forms.

As for therapy for head and neck cancer, immunotherapy and targeted therapy play smaller roles than in some other cancers because the form tends to be diagnosed in early stages before metastases appear. Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation remain the major treatments. According to Tokaz’s presentation, surgery, or radiation—often with minimal adjuvant chemotherapy—can be appropriate for the earliest stage I and II cases of head and neck SCC. (She noted that HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma has its own staging system.)

Stage I and II cases make up 15% of new diagnoses and have a 5-year survival rate of > 70%. “In the earliest days, our main role was to make radiation work better and reduce it while adding a minimum amount of toxicity mutations,” she said. “Chemotherapy can help, but it’s only demonstrated improvement in overall survival in patients with positive surgical margins and extracapsular extension.”

In Stage III, IVA, and IVB cases, which make up 70% of new diagnoses, chemotherapy plus radiation is recommended. Five-year survival drops to 30% to 50%. Finally, 10% of new diagnoses are Stage IVC, which is incurable and median survival is < 1 year.

Since HPV-positive patients generally have better prognoses, oncologists are considering how to adjust their treatment. However, Tokaz notes that clinical trials have not shown a benefit from less intensive treatment in these patients. “At this point, we still treat them the same way as HPV-negative patients. But it's an ongoing area of research.”

Researchers are also exploring how to optimize regimens in patients ineligible for treatment with the chemotherapy agent cisplatin. “These folks have been traditionally excluded from clinical trials because they’re sicker,” Tokaz explained. “Researchers normally want the fittest and the best patients [in trials]. If you give a drug to someone with a lot of other comorbid conditions, they might not do as well with it, and it makes your drug look bad.”

Figuring out how to treat these patients is an especially urgent task in head and neck cancer because so many patients are frail and have comorbidities. More globally, Tokaz said the rise of HPV-related head and neck cancer highlights the importance of HPV vaccination, which is crucial for preventing cervical and anal cancer in addition to head and neck cancer. “HPV vaccination for children and young adults is crucial.”

Molly Tokaz, MD, reported no relevant financial relationships.