Renal Cell Carcinoma

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.

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.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Kurzrock_Razelle_WISC_web.jpg

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Kurzrock_Razelle_WISC_web.jpg

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Kurzrock_Razelle_WISC_web.jpg

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Fewer than half of the cancer drugs approved under the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval pathway between 2013 and 2017 have been shown to improve overall survival or quality of life, despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study. 

Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response. 

Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.

In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits. 

Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.

Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results. 

The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff. 

However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials. 

In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”

There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit. 

The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious. 

In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial. 

“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done. 

Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.” 

But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.

Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.” 

Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.” 

As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together. 

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Fewer than half of the cancer drugs approved under the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval pathway between 2013 and 2017 have been shown to improve overall survival or quality of life, despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study. 

Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response. 

Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.

In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits. 

Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.

Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results. 

The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff. 

However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials. 

In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”

There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit. 

The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious. 

In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial. 

“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done. 

Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.” 

But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.

Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.” 

Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.” 

As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together. 

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Fewer than half of the cancer drugs approved under the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval pathway between 2013 and 2017 have been shown to improve overall survival or quality of life, despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study. 

Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response. 

Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.

In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits. 

Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.

Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results. 

The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff. 

However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials. 

In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”

There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit. 

The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious. 

In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial. 

“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done. 

Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.” 

But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.

Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.” 

Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.” 

As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together. 

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

Groninger_Hunter_MD_web.jpg

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

Groninger_Hunter_MD_web.jpg

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

Groninger_Hunter_MD_web.jpg

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.