Patient & Survivor Care

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adjuvant therapy with aspirin offers no protection against recurrence or survival benefit in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, the results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial suggest.

These data are more robust than the efficacy signals from previous studies, meaning healthcare providers should not recommend aspirin as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, reported lead author Wendy Y. Chen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

What Data Support Aspirin for Treating Breast Cancer?

“Multiple observational studies have reported a decreased risk of death among survivors of breast cancer who were regular aspirin users,” the investigators wrote in JAMA. “Even more compelling were data from randomized trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease.”

This possible benefit was reported with mechanistic support, as aspirin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties could theoretically control tumor growth, they added. Furthermore, aspirin impacts several cancer pathways currently targeted by agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Chen_Wendy_BOSTON_web.jpg

What Were The Key Findings From The A011502 Trial?

The A011502 trial enrolled 3,020 patients aged 18-70 years with ERBB2-negative breast cancer who had received standard therapy via routine clinical care. Eligibility required that chemotherapy and local therapy were complete, but ongoing endocrine therapy was allowed.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin 300 mg per day or matching placebo for 5 years. The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival, and the key secondary outcome was overall survival.

After a median follow-up of almost 3 years, at the first interim analysis, the study was suspended early due to statistical futility. By that timepoint, 253 invasive disease-free survival events occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 112 in the placebo group, providing a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63) that was not statistically significant (P = .06). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Safety profiles were similar across groups.
 

How Will This Study Change Practice?

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, of Georgetown Lombardi Institute for Cancer and Aging Research, Washington, and colleagues, praised the trial for its comprehensive approach, but they predicted that the negative result could spell friction for health care providers.

“[C]linicians may find it challenging to communicate with their patients about the negative result in the Alliance trial, because prior lay press articles, observational studies, and meta-analyses of cardiovascular trials suggested that aspirin may decrease breast cancer recurrence,” they wrote.

Mandelblatt_Jeanne_DC_web.jpg

How Might the Findings From the A011502 Trial Impact Future Research?

Finally, and “most critically,” the editorialists raised concerns about health equity, noting the limited diversity in trial participants and the potential exclusion of subgroups that might benefit from aspirin use, particularly those more likely to experience accelerated biological aging and disparities in cancer risk and outcomes due to systemic racism or adverse social determinants of health.

They concluded by emphasizing the need to consider the intersectionality of aging, cancer, and disparities in designing future trials to advance health equity.

This study was funded by the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The research was also supported in part by Bayer, which provided the study drug. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Seagen, Orum Clinical, and others. The editorialists disclosed relationships with Cantex Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

Adjuvant therapy with aspirin offers no protection against recurrence or survival benefit in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, the results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial suggest.

These data are more robust than the efficacy signals from previous studies, meaning healthcare providers should not recommend aspirin as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, reported lead author Wendy Y. Chen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

What Data Support Aspirin for Treating Breast Cancer?

“Multiple observational studies have reported a decreased risk of death among survivors of breast cancer who were regular aspirin users,” the investigators wrote in JAMA. “Even more compelling were data from randomized trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease.”

This possible benefit was reported with mechanistic support, as aspirin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties could theoretically control tumor growth, they added. Furthermore, aspirin impacts several cancer pathways currently targeted by agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Chen_Wendy_BOSTON_web.jpg

What Were The Key Findings From The A011502 Trial?

The A011502 trial enrolled 3,020 patients aged 18-70 years with ERBB2-negative breast cancer who had received standard therapy via routine clinical care. Eligibility required that chemotherapy and local therapy were complete, but ongoing endocrine therapy was allowed.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin 300 mg per day or matching placebo for 5 years. The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival, and the key secondary outcome was overall survival.

After a median follow-up of almost 3 years, at the first interim analysis, the study was suspended early due to statistical futility. By that timepoint, 253 invasive disease-free survival events occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 112 in the placebo group, providing a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63) that was not statistically significant (P = .06). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Safety profiles were similar across groups.
 

How Will This Study Change Practice?

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, of Georgetown Lombardi Institute for Cancer and Aging Research, Washington, and colleagues, praised the trial for its comprehensive approach, but they predicted that the negative result could spell friction for health care providers.

“[C]linicians may find it challenging to communicate with their patients about the negative result in the Alliance trial, because prior lay press articles, observational studies, and meta-analyses of cardiovascular trials suggested that aspirin may decrease breast cancer recurrence,” they wrote.

Mandelblatt_Jeanne_DC_web.jpg

How Might the Findings From the A011502 Trial Impact Future Research?

Finally, and “most critically,” the editorialists raised concerns about health equity, noting the limited diversity in trial participants and the potential exclusion of subgroups that might benefit from aspirin use, particularly those more likely to experience accelerated biological aging and disparities in cancer risk and outcomes due to systemic racism or adverse social determinants of health.

They concluded by emphasizing the need to consider the intersectionality of aging, cancer, and disparities in designing future trials to advance health equity.

This study was funded by the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The research was also supported in part by Bayer, which provided the study drug. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Seagen, Orum Clinical, and others. The editorialists disclosed relationships with Cantex Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

Adjuvant therapy with aspirin offers no protection against recurrence or survival benefit in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, the results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial suggest.

These data are more robust than the efficacy signals from previous studies, meaning healthcare providers should not recommend aspirin as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, reported lead author Wendy Y. Chen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

What Data Support Aspirin for Treating Breast Cancer?

“Multiple observational studies have reported a decreased risk of death among survivors of breast cancer who were regular aspirin users,” the investigators wrote in JAMA. “Even more compelling were data from randomized trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease.”

This possible benefit was reported with mechanistic support, as aspirin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties could theoretically control tumor growth, they added. Furthermore, aspirin impacts several cancer pathways currently targeted by agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Chen_Wendy_BOSTON_web.jpg

What Were The Key Findings From The A011502 Trial?

The A011502 trial enrolled 3,020 patients aged 18-70 years with ERBB2-negative breast cancer who had received standard therapy via routine clinical care. Eligibility required that chemotherapy and local therapy were complete, but ongoing endocrine therapy was allowed.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin 300 mg per day or matching placebo for 5 years. The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival, and the key secondary outcome was overall survival.

After a median follow-up of almost 3 years, at the first interim analysis, the study was suspended early due to statistical futility. By that timepoint, 253 invasive disease-free survival events occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 112 in the placebo group, providing a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63) that was not statistically significant (P = .06). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Safety profiles were similar across groups.
 

How Will This Study Change Practice?

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, of Georgetown Lombardi Institute for Cancer and Aging Research, Washington, and colleagues, praised the trial for its comprehensive approach, but they predicted that the negative result could spell friction for health care providers.

“[C]linicians may find it challenging to communicate with their patients about the negative result in the Alliance trial, because prior lay press articles, observational studies, and meta-analyses of cardiovascular trials suggested that aspirin may decrease breast cancer recurrence,” they wrote.

Mandelblatt_Jeanne_DC_web.jpg

How Might the Findings From the A011502 Trial Impact Future Research?

Finally, and “most critically,” the editorialists raised concerns about health equity, noting the limited diversity in trial participants and the potential exclusion of subgroups that might benefit from aspirin use, particularly those more likely to experience accelerated biological aging and disparities in cancer risk and outcomes due to systemic racism or adverse social determinants of health.

They concluded by emphasizing the need to consider the intersectionality of aging, cancer, and disparities in designing future trials to advance health equity.

This study was funded by the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The research was also supported in part by Bayer, which provided the study drug. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, Seagen, Orum Clinical, and others. The editorialists disclosed relationships with Cantex Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The latest research supports immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, but patient selection is key to optimize outcomes, according to a medical oncologist from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Michael Serzan, MD, who works in the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the institute, stated this at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, during a presentation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2022 in European Urology Open Science summarized six randomized controlled trials with a total of 5121 adult patients. In the review, the researchers found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF TKI) were associated with consistent improvements across all risk groups for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Additional newer research supports the use of immunotherapy combinations or other immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line or adjuvant treatments for renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Serzan said during an interview. However, more genomic and histology-directed therapies are needed, he noted.
 

Tips for Evaluating Risk When Treating Renal Cell Carcinoma?

For patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma who have undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, there are several models that estimate the risk of recurrence based on pathologic tumor stage, grade, histology, invasion, and the extent of necrosis, Dr. Serzan said. These models can help guide selection of patients who may be at high risk of recurrence and, therefore, may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

For patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, the IMDC and MSKCC prognostic models stratify patients to favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups based on clinical and lab factors. The IMDC risk stratification model is used as a prognostic model to stratify patients diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, Dr. Serzan said.
 

What Research Supports Treatments for Clear Cell and Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab in 2021 for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk of recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Pembrolizumab is the first adjuvant therapy shown to significantly improve overall survival in these patients, Dr. Serzan said. In the KEYNOTE-564 study, published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, pembrolizumab demonstrated an improvement in disease free survival as well as overall survival when compared with placebo.

Several similar studies of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma involving atezolizumab vs. placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. placebo, and nivolumab vs. observation have not shown significant benefits in terms of disease-free survival, Dr. Serzan noted.

The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024), which were updated this year, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for patients with stage II, III, or IV clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial or radical nephrectomy, he said.

Looking ahead, biomarkers are needed to understand the risk of recurrence, and which patients benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Serzan added.
 

Where Do VEGF-TKIs Fit In?

VEGF is a treatment target for renal cancer, and angiogenesis inhibition with VEGF TKIs continues to be a subject for study, Dr. Serzan said. In the CABOSUN study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017, patients were randomized to cabozantinib or sunitinib. Progression-free survival was significantly greater in the cabozantinib group, but overall survival was similar between the groups.

In another randomized trial, the CheckMate 214 study, patients received either sunitinib or a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in four doses given every 3 weeks, followed by nivolumab alone every 2 weeks, and these patients were stratified by risk, Dr. Serzan noted.

The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the combination group vs. 8.5 months in the sunitinib group for patients at intermediate or poor risk of recurrence. The median progression-free survival was significantly greater in sunitinib patients with favorable risk vs. combination patients with favorable risk (28.9 months vs. 12.4 months).

Overall survival was higher for all patients with combination therapy vs. sunitinib regardless of risk stratification.

Dr. Serzan reviewed the pros of VEGF/PD1 (programmed death-ligand 1) combinations as including a high response rate (generally 52%-72%) and a low rate of primary progressive disease (5%-12%), as well as favorable progression-free and overall survival and low rates of immune-related adverse events.

However, cons of this treatment include lack of data on treatment-free survival as well as the decrease in progression-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios over time and potential chronic VEGF/TKI toxicities, he said.
 

What Treatments Are Recommended for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Now?

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent histological subtype of kidney cancer, accounting for 70%-75% of cases, and these patients are prone to metastasis, recurrence, and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, according to authors of a recent review published in Frontiers in Oncology.

Dr. Serzan shared his preferred protocol for treatment-naive metastatic ccRCC patients, based on the NCCN guidelines for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024) that had been updated in 2024.

For those with sarcomatoid features, he favors the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, while those without sarcomatoid features, if highly symptomatic, may be treated with any of several combinations: nivolumab/ipilimumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For asymptomatic patients without sarcomatoid features, treatment depends on eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitors or ipilimumab, Dr. Serzan said. His first choice for those eligible is nivolumab/ipilimumab; those not eligible for ipilimumab could receive nivolumab, pembrolizumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For patients not eligible for ICIs because of uncontrolled autoimmune disease, or high-dose glucocorticoids, Dr. Serzan recommended treatment with cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus, pazopanib, or sunitinib.
 

What are Some Takeaway Points About Immunotherapy and Renal Cell Carcinoma?

“Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for renal cell carcinoma, with significant increases in overall survival, and a small but consistent cure fraction that was unimaginable 10 years ago,” Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and vice-chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Kidney Cancer, said in an interview.

However, challenges to implementing new treatments in clinical practice are ongoing, he said. The major challenges facing clinicians, patients, and their families include the cost of therapy, logistics of treatment administration, and managing toxicities, Dr. Jonasch said.  

Patient selection is key to optimize outcomes with immunotherapy, and shared decision-making is essential to ensure that choice of therapy matches patient expectations and needs — and to maintain clear and open channels of communication while patients are on therapy, Dr. Jonasch said. “In my clinic, we empower patients to take treatment breaks to manage side effects, thereby optimizing quality of life while maintaining treatment efficacy,” he said.

Although significant progress has been made in managing renal cell carcinoma, more research is needed to increase the proportion of patients cured, said Dr. Jonasch. “A clearer understanding of the determinants of response and resistance, which will be driven by information rich clinical trials, will help move us in that direction,” he said.

Dr. Serzan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jonasch disclosed research support from AbbVie, Arrowhead, Aveo, BMS, Corvus, Merck, NiKang, ProfoundBio, and Telix, as well as honoraria from Aveo, Eisai, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, NiKang, and Takeda.

The latest research supports immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, but patient selection is key to optimize outcomes, according to a medical oncologist from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Michael Serzan, MD, who works in the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the institute, stated this at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, during a presentation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2022 in European Urology Open Science summarized six randomized controlled trials with a total of 5121 adult patients. In the review, the researchers found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF TKI) were associated with consistent improvements across all risk groups for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Additional newer research supports the use of immunotherapy combinations or other immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line or adjuvant treatments for renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Serzan said during an interview. However, more genomic and histology-directed therapies are needed, he noted.
 

Tips for Evaluating Risk When Treating Renal Cell Carcinoma?

For patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma who have undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, there are several models that estimate the risk of recurrence based on pathologic tumor stage, grade, histology, invasion, and the extent of necrosis, Dr. Serzan said. These models can help guide selection of patients who may be at high risk of recurrence and, therefore, may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

For patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, the IMDC and MSKCC prognostic models stratify patients to favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups based on clinical and lab factors. The IMDC risk stratification model is used as a prognostic model to stratify patients diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, Dr. Serzan said.
 

What Research Supports Treatments for Clear Cell and Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab in 2021 for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk of recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Pembrolizumab is the first adjuvant therapy shown to significantly improve overall survival in these patients, Dr. Serzan said. In the KEYNOTE-564 study, published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, pembrolizumab demonstrated an improvement in disease free survival as well as overall survival when compared with placebo.

Several similar studies of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma involving atezolizumab vs. placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. placebo, and nivolumab vs. observation have not shown significant benefits in terms of disease-free survival, Dr. Serzan noted.

The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024), which were updated this year, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for patients with stage II, III, or IV clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial or radical nephrectomy, he said.

Looking ahead, biomarkers are needed to understand the risk of recurrence, and which patients benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Serzan added.
 

Where Do VEGF-TKIs Fit In?

VEGF is a treatment target for renal cancer, and angiogenesis inhibition with VEGF TKIs continues to be a subject for study, Dr. Serzan said. In the CABOSUN study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017, patients were randomized to cabozantinib or sunitinib. Progression-free survival was significantly greater in the cabozantinib group, but overall survival was similar between the groups.

In another randomized trial, the CheckMate 214 study, patients received either sunitinib or a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in four doses given every 3 weeks, followed by nivolumab alone every 2 weeks, and these patients were stratified by risk, Dr. Serzan noted.

The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the combination group vs. 8.5 months in the sunitinib group for patients at intermediate or poor risk of recurrence. The median progression-free survival was significantly greater in sunitinib patients with favorable risk vs. combination patients with favorable risk (28.9 months vs. 12.4 months).

Overall survival was higher for all patients with combination therapy vs. sunitinib regardless of risk stratification.

Dr. Serzan reviewed the pros of VEGF/PD1 (programmed death-ligand 1) combinations as including a high response rate (generally 52%-72%) and a low rate of primary progressive disease (5%-12%), as well as favorable progression-free and overall survival and low rates of immune-related adverse events.

However, cons of this treatment include lack of data on treatment-free survival as well as the decrease in progression-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios over time and potential chronic VEGF/TKI toxicities, he said.
 

What Treatments Are Recommended for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Now?

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent histological subtype of kidney cancer, accounting for 70%-75% of cases, and these patients are prone to metastasis, recurrence, and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, according to authors of a recent review published in Frontiers in Oncology.

Dr. Serzan shared his preferred protocol for treatment-naive metastatic ccRCC patients, based on the NCCN guidelines for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024) that had been updated in 2024.

For those with sarcomatoid features, he favors the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, while those without sarcomatoid features, if highly symptomatic, may be treated with any of several combinations: nivolumab/ipilimumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For asymptomatic patients without sarcomatoid features, treatment depends on eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitors or ipilimumab, Dr. Serzan said. His first choice for those eligible is nivolumab/ipilimumab; those not eligible for ipilimumab could receive nivolumab, pembrolizumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For patients not eligible for ICIs because of uncontrolled autoimmune disease, or high-dose glucocorticoids, Dr. Serzan recommended treatment with cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus, pazopanib, or sunitinib.
 

What are Some Takeaway Points About Immunotherapy and Renal Cell Carcinoma?

“Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for renal cell carcinoma, with significant increases in overall survival, and a small but consistent cure fraction that was unimaginable 10 years ago,” Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and vice-chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Kidney Cancer, said in an interview.

However, challenges to implementing new treatments in clinical practice are ongoing, he said. The major challenges facing clinicians, patients, and their families include the cost of therapy, logistics of treatment administration, and managing toxicities, Dr. Jonasch said.  

Patient selection is key to optimize outcomes with immunotherapy, and shared decision-making is essential to ensure that choice of therapy matches patient expectations and needs — and to maintain clear and open channels of communication while patients are on therapy, Dr. Jonasch said. “In my clinic, we empower patients to take treatment breaks to manage side effects, thereby optimizing quality of life while maintaining treatment efficacy,” he said.

Although significant progress has been made in managing renal cell carcinoma, more research is needed to increase the proportion of patients cured, said Dr. Jonasch. “A clearer understanding of the determinants of response and resistance, which will be driven by information rich clinical trials, will help move us in that direction,” he said.

Dr. Serzan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jonasch disclosed research support from AbbVie, Arrowhead, Aveo, BMS, Corvus, Merck, NiKang, ProfoundBio, and Telix, as well as honoraria from Aveo, Eisai, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, NiKang, and Takeda.

The latest research supports immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, but patient selection is key to optimize outcomes, according to a medical oncologist from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Michael Serzan, MD, who works in the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the institute, stated this at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, during a presentation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2022 in European Urology Open Science summarized six randomized controlled trials with a total of 5121 adult patients. In the review, the researchers found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF TKI) were associated with consistent improvements across all risk groups for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Additional newer research supports the use of immunotherapy combinations or other immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line or adjuvant treatments for renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Serzan said during an interview. However, more genomic and histology-directed therapies are needed, he noted.
 

Tips for Evaluating Risk When Treating Renal Cell Carcinoma?

For patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma who have undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, there are several models that estimate the risk of recurrence based on pathologic tumor stage, grade, histology, invasion, and the extent of necrosis, Dr. Serzan said. These models can help guide selection of patients who may be at high risk of recurrence and, therefore, may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

For patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, the IMDC and MSKCC prognostic models stratify patients to favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups based on clinical and lab factors. The IMDC risk stratification model is used as a prognostic model to stratify patients diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, Dr. Serzan said.
 

What Research Supports Treatments for Clear Cell and Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab in 2021 for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk of recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Pembrolizumab is the first adjuvant therapy shown to significantly improve overall survival in these patients, Dr. Serzan said. In the KEYNOTE-564 study, published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, pembrolizumab demonstrated an improvement in disease free survival as well as overall survival when compared with placebo.

Several similar studies of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma involving atezolizumab vs. placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. placebo, and nivolumab vs. observation have not shown significant benefits in terms of disease-free survival, Dr. Serzan noted.

The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024), which were updated this year, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for patients with stage II, III, or IV clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial or radical nephrectomy, he said.

Looking ahead, biomarkers are needed to understand the risk of recurrence, and which patients benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Serzan added.
 

Where Do VEGF-TKIs Fit In?

VEGF is a treatment target for renal cancer, and angiogenesis inhibition with VEGF TKIs continues to be a subject for study, Dr. Serzan said. In the CABOSUN study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017, patients were randomized to cabozantinib or sunitinib. Progression-free survival was significantly greater in the cabozantinib group, but overall survival was similar between the groups.

In another randomized trial, the CheckMate 214 study, patients received either sunitinib or a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in four doses given every 3 weeks, followed by nivolumab alone every 2 weeks, and these patients were stratified by risk, Dr. Serzan noted.

The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the combination group vs. 8.5 months in the sunitinib group for patients at intermediate or poor risk of recurrence. The median progression-free survival was significantly greater in sunitinib patients with favorable risk vs. combination patients with favorable risk (28.9 months vs. 12.4 months).

Overall survival was higher for all patients with combination therapy vs. sunitinib regardless of risk stratification.

Dr. Serzan reviewed the pros of VEGF/PD1 (programmed death-ligand 1) combinations as including a high response rate (generally 52%-72%) and a low rate of primary progressive disease (5%-12%), as well as favorable progression-free and overall survival and low rates of immune-related adverse events.

However, cons of this treatment include lack of data on treatment-free survival as well as the decrease in progression-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios over time and potential chronic VEGF/TKI toxicities, he said.
 

What Treatments Are Recommended for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Now?

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent histological subtype of kidney cancer, accounting for 70%-75% of cases, and these patients are prone to metastasis, recurrence, and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, according to authors of a recent review published in Frontiers in Oncology.

Dr. Serzan shared his preferred protocol for treatment-naive metastatic ccRCC patients, based on the NCCN guidelines for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024) that had been updated in 2024.

For those with sarcomatoid features, he favors the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, while those without sarcomatoid features, if highly symptomatic, may be treated with any of several combinations: nivolumab/ipilimumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For asymptomatic patients without sarcomatoid features, treatment depends on eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitors or ipilimumab, Dr. Serzan said. His first choice for those eligible is nivolumab/ipilimumab; those not eligible for ipilimumab could receive nivolumab, pembrolizumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For patients not eligible for ICIs because of uncontrolled autoimmune disease, or high-dose glucocorticoids, Dr. Serzan recommended treatment with cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus, pazopanib, or sunitinib.
 

What are Some Takeaway Points About Immunotherapy and Renal Cell Carcinoma?

“Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for renal cell carcinoma, with significant increases in overall survival, and a small but consistent cure fraction that was unimaginable 10 years ago,” Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and vice-chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Kidney Cancer, said in an interview.

However, challenges to implementing new treatments in clinical practice are ongoing, he said. The major challenges facing clinicians, patients, and their families include the cost of therapy, logistics of treatment administration, and managing toxicities, Dr. Jonasch said.  

Patient selection is key to optimize outcomes with immunotherapy, and shared decision-making is essential to ensure that choice of therapy matches patient expectations and needs — and to maintain clear and open channels of communication while patients are on therapy, Dr. Jonasch said. “In my clinic, we empower patients to take treatment breaks to manage side effects, thereby optimizing quality of life while maintaining treatment efficacy,” he said.

Although significant progress has been made in managing renal cell carcinoma, more research is needed to increase the proportion of patients cured, said Dr. Jonasch. “A clearer understanding of the determinants of response and resistance, which will be driven by information rich clinical trials, will help move us in that direction,” he said.

Dr. Serzan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jonasch disclosed research support from AbbVie, Arrowhead, Aveo, BMS, Corvus, Merck, NiKang, ProfoundBio, and Telix, as well as honoraria from Aveo, Eisai, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, NiKang, and Takeda.