Liam Davenport

The incidence of thyroid cancer cases has increased markedly since the late 1990s, although rates vary widely between countries, and the increases have been largely confined to the papillary subtype, suggests a new population-based study spanning 25 countries.

The researchers say this is “likely to be due to the effect of intense scrutiny of the thyroid gland ... in middle-aged individuals” with sensitive imaging such as ultrasonography or CT.

There is “a lot of evidence” to suggest that this is leading to overdiagnosis, lead author Adalberto Miranda-Filho, PhD, told this news organization. The degree of overdiagnosis depends on the “diagnostic pressure” resulting from opportunistic screening.

The potential for cancer overdiagnosis, including thyroid cancer, was recently estimated to be about 20% for five common types, and there have been calls to relabel low-risk lesions as something other than cancer.

Dr. Miranda-Filho does not believe that subclinical papillary thyroid cancer should be renamed, because that would “require agreement of pathologists and other researchers,” although he said it is “important to explain that not all ‘cancers’ can evolve into a life-threatening disease.”

Screening for thyroid cancer is not currently recommended because it could increase the risk for patient harms without improving outcomes, explained Dr. Miranda-Filho of the Cancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

The research was published on March 1 in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.
 

Papillary thyroid cancers increased in all countries

Thyroid cancer, which includes a range of histologic subtypes, accounts for 3% of cancer diagnoses globally, the team writes. It is estimated that there were 586,000 new patients in 2020.

Recent evidence suggests the incidence has risen substantially in many high- and medium-income countries over the past 30 years, although there is wide variation between and within populations. Moreover, mortality rates for thyroid cancer have decreased or remained stable.

To investigate this further, the French researchers examined data on thyroid cancer incidence collated by the IARC for the period 1998-2012. They focused on 25 countries from Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania, which have cancer registries that cover more than 2 million of their population.

The analyses were restricted to individuals aged 20-84 years, and the proportion of cases of unspecified thyroid cancer had to be less than 10%.

Data on almost 150,000 thyroid cancer cases were examined, including 59,499 from South Korea, 15,535 from the United States, 15,158 from Canada, 8,684 from the United Kingdom, 8,106 from Australia, and 3,806 from China.

Across all countries, papillary thyroid cancer was the main contributor to thyroid cancer cases. Despite wide variations between countries, it was the only histologic subtype that increased in incidence in all countries.

For the period 2008-2012, the age-standardized incidence rate for papillary thyroid cancer in women ranged from 4.3 to 5.3 per 100,000 person-years in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Denmark to 143.3 cases per 100,000 person-years in South Korea.

Among men, the age-standardized incidence rate ranged from 1.2 to 1.6 per 100,000 person-years in Thailand, Bulgaria, and the Netherlands to 30.7 per 100,000 person-years in South Korea.

Over the whole study period, rates of papillary thyroid cancer increased in both men and women, with large variability between countries. The increases in women were rapid and exceeded 20 cases per 100,000 in several countries, most notably, South Korea.

Interestingly, incidence rates in South Korea, China, Japan, and Turkey were low and stable until the 2000s and then rose markedly, whereas the increase in incidence in the United States, Austria, Croatia, Germany, Slovenia, Spain, Lithuania, and Bulgaria stabilized around 2009.
 

Not much change in incidence rates for other subtypes of thyroid cancer

For other histologic subtypes of thyroid cancer, the trends in incidence rates were relatively stable and low.

However, some countries, such as the United States, China, South Korea, Turkey, and some Northern European countries, saw increases in follicular thyroid cancer, albeit at much lower rates than for papillary thyroid cancer.

Overall, age-standardized rates for follicular thyroid cancer ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 per 100,000 person-years among women and from 0.3 to 1.5 per 100,000 person-years among men. Rates for medullary thyroid cancer were less than one per 100,000 person-years among men and women. For the anaplastic subtype, rates were less than 0.2 per 100,000 person-years.

The team notes that small decreases in anaplastic thyroid cancer rates across the study period were recorded in 21 countries, including Colombia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Germany, and Norway.

However, Dr. Miranda-Filho said that overall, the incidence rate of anaplastic thyroid cancer “seems to be not affected by the intensity of screening,” whereas the “lack of evidence” on changing trends for follicular disease suggests that opportunistic screening allows only non–life-threatening tumors to emerge “from a large reservoir of subclinical asymptomatic neoplasms in the thyroid glands.”

The study was supported by the French Institut National du Cancer, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health to Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of thyroid cancer cases has increased markedly since the late 1990s, although rates vary widely between countries, and the increases have been largely confined to the papillary subtype, suggests a new population-based study spanning 25 countries.

The researchers say this is “likely to be due to the effect of intense scrutiny of the thyroid gland ... in middle-aged individuals” with sensitive imaging such as ultrasonography or CT.

There is “a lot of evidence” to suggest that this is leading to overdiagnosis, lead author Adalberto Miranda-Filho, PhD, told this news organization. The degree of overdiagnosis depends on the “diagnostic pressure” resulting from opportunistic screening.

The potential for cancer overdiagnosis, including thyroid cancer, was recently estimated to be about 20% for five common types, and there have been calls to relabel low-risk lesions as something other than cancer.

Dr. Miranda-Filho does not believe that subclinical papillary thyroid cancer should be renamed, because that would “require agreement of pathologists and other researchers,” although he said it is “important to explain that not all ‘cancers’ can evolve into a life-threatening disease.”

Screening for thyroid cancer is not currently recommended because it could increase the risk for patient harms without improving outcomes, explained Dr. Miranda-Filho of the Cancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

The research was published on March 1 in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.
 

Papillary thyroid cancers increased in all countries

Thyroid cancer, which includes a range of histologic subtypes, accounts for 3% of cancer diagnoses globally, the team writes. It is estimated that there were 586,000 new patients in 2020.

Recent evidence suggests the incidence has risen substantially in many high- and medium-income countries over the past 30 years, although there is wide variation between and within populations. Moreover, mortality rates for thyroid cancer have decreased or remained stable.

To investigate this further, the French researchers examined data on thyroid cancer incidence collated by the IARC for the period 1998-2012. They focused on 25 countries from Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania, which have cancer registries that cover more than 2 million of their population.

The analyses were restricted to individuals aged 20-84 years, and the proportion of cases of unspecified thyroid cancer had to be less than 10%.

Data on almost 150,000 thyroid cancer cases were examined, including 59,499 from South Korea, 15,535 from the United States, 15,158 from Canada, 8,684 from the United Kingdom, 8,106 from Australia, and 3,806 from China.

Across all countries, papillary thyroid cancer was the main contributor to thyroid cancer cases. Despite wide variations between countries, it was the only histologic subtype that increased in incidence in all countries.

For the period 2008-2012, the age-standardized incidence rate for papillary thyroid cancer in women ranged from 4.3 to 5.3 per 100,000 person-years in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Denmark to 143.3 cases per 100,000 person-years in South Korea.

Among men, the age-standardized incidence rate ranged from 1.2 to 1.6 per 100,000 person-years in Thailand, Bulgaria, and the Netherlands to 30.7 per 100,000 person-years in South Korea.

Over the whole study period, rates of papillary thyroid cancer increased in both men and women, with large variability between countries. The increases in women were rapid and exceeded 20 cases per 100,000 in several countries, most notably, South Korea.

Interestingly, incidence rates in South Korea, China, Japan, and Turkey were low and stable until the 2000s and then rose markedly, whereas the increase in incidence in the United States, Austria, Croatia, Germany, Slovenia, Spain, Lithuania, and Bulgaria stabilized around 2009.
 

Not much change in incidence rates for other subtypes of thyroid cancer

For other histologic subtypes of thyroid cancer, the trends in incidence rates were relatively stable and low.

However, some countries, such as the United States, China, South Korea, Turkey, and some Northern European countries, saw increases in follicular thyroid cancer, albeit at much lower rates than for papillary thyroid cancer.

Overall, age-standardized rates for follicular thyroid cancer ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 per 100,000 person-years among women and from 0.3 to 1.5 per 100,000 person-years among men. Rates for medullary thyroid cancer were less than one per 100,000 person-years among men and women. For the anaplastic subtype, rates were less than 0.2 per 100,000 person-years.

The team notes that small decreases in anaplastic thyroid cancer rates across the study period were recorded in 21 countries, including Colombia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Germany, and Norway.

However, Dr. Miranda-Filho said that overall, the incidence rate of anaplastic thyroid cancer “seems to be not affected by the intensity of screening,” whereas the “lack of evidence” on changing trends for follicular disease suggests that opportunistic screening allows only non–life-threatening tumors to emerge “from a large reservoir of subclinical asymptomatic neoplasms in the thyroid glands.”

The study was supported by the French Institut National du Cancer, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health to Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of thyroid cancer cases has increased markedly since the late 1990s, although rates vary widely between countries, and the increases have been largely confined to the papillary subtype, suggests a new population-based study spanning 25 countries.

The researchers say this is “likely to be due to the effect of intense scrutiny of the thyroid gland ... in middle-aged individuals” with sensitive imaging such as ultrasonography or CT.

There is “a lot of evidence” to suggest that this is leading to overdiagnosis, lead author Adalberto Miranda-Filho, PhD, told this news organization. The degree of overdiagnosis depends on the “diagnostic pressure” resulting from opportunistic screening.

The potential for cancer overdiagnosis, including thyroid cancer, was recently estimated to be about 20% for five common types, and there have been calls to relabel low-risk lesions as something other than cancer.

Dr. Miranda-Filho does not believe that subclinical papillary thyroid cancer should be renamed, because that would “require agreement of pathologists and other researchers,” although he said it is “important to explain that not all ‘cancers’ can evolve into a life-threatening disease.”

Screening for thyroid cancer is not currently recommended because it could increase the risk for patient harms without improving outcomes, explained Dr. Miranda-Filho of the Cancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

The research was published on March 1 in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.
 

Papillary thyroid cancers increased in all countries

Thyroid cancer, which includes a range of histologic subtypes, accounts for 3% of cancer diagnoses globally, the team writes. It is estimated that there were 586,000 new patients in 2020.

Recent evidence suggests the incidence has risen substantially in many high- and medium-income countries over the past 30 years, although there is wide variation between and within populations. Moreover, mortality rates for thyroid cancer have decreased or remained stable.

To investigate this further, the French researchers examined data on thyroid cancer incidence collated by the IARC for the period 1998-2012. They focused on 25 countries from Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania, which have cancer registries that cover more than 2 million of their population.

The analyses were restricted to individuals aged 20-84 years, and the proportion of cases of unspecified thyroid cancer had to be less than 10%.

Data on almost 150,000 thyroid cancer cases were examined, including 59,499 from South Korea, 15,535 from the United States, 15,158 from Canada, 8,684 from the United Kingdom, 8,106 from Australia, and 3,806 from China.

Across all countries, papillary thyroid cancer was the main contributor to thyroid cancer cases. Despite wide variations between countries, it was the only histologic subtype that increased in incidence in all countries.

For the period 2008-2012, the age-standardized incidence rate for papillary thyroid cancer in women ranged from 4.3 to 5.3 per 100,000 person-years in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Denmark to 143.3 cases per 100,000 person-years in South Korea.

Among men, the age-standardized incidence rate ranged from 1.2 to 1.6 per 100,000 person-years in Thailand, Bulgaria, and the Netherlands to 30.7 per 100,000 person-years in South Korea.

Over the whole study period, rates of papillary thyroid cancer increased in both men and women, with large variability between countries. The increases in women were rapid and exceeded 20 cases per 100,000 in several countries, most notably, South Korea.

Interestingly, incidence rates in South Korea, China, Japan, and Turkey were low and stable until the 2000s and then rose markedly, whereas the increase in incidence in the United States, Austria, Croatia, Germany, Slovenia, Spain, Lithuania, and Bulgaria stabilized around 2009.
 

Not much change in incidence rates for other subtypes of thyroid cancer

For other histologic subtypes of thyroid cancer, the trends in incidence rates were relatively stable and low.

However, some countries, such as the United States, China, South Korea, Turkey, and some Northern European countries, saw increases in follicular thyroid cancer, albeit at much lower rates than for papillary thyroid cancer.

Overall, age-standardized rates for follicular thyroid cancer ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 per 100,000 person-years among women and from 0.3 to 1.5 per 100,000 person-years among men. Rates for medullary thyroid cancer were less than one per 100,000 person-years among men and women. For the anaplastic subtype, rates were less than 0.2 per 100,000 person-years.

The team notes that small decreases in anaplastic thyroid cancer rates across the study period were recorded in 21 countries, including Colombia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Germany, and Norway.

However, Dr. Miranda-Filho said that overall, the incidence rate of anaplastic thyroid cancer “seems to be not affected by the intensity of screening,” whereas the “lack of evidence” on changing trends for follicular disease suggests that opportunistic screening allows only non–life-threatening tumors to emerge “from a large reservoir of subclinical asymptomatic neoplasms in the thyroid glands.”

The study was supported by the French Institut National du Cancer, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health to Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A miniature camera the size of a capsule that is swallowed and then transmits images of the inside of the gut can reveal cancer and gastrointestinal diseases. The device, which will be studied in a trial conducted by the National Health Service in England, is used by patients at home as a substitute for endoscopy.

“What sounds like sci-fi is now becoming a reality,” said Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England. “These minute cameras pass through your body. They take two pictures per second, checking for signs of cancer and other conditions like Crohn’s disease.”

The trial, announced on March 11, 2021, will initially involve 11,000 patients from 40 regions in England. Participants will be sent the colon capsule endoscopy to use at home.

The capsule typically takes 5-8 hours to pass through the digestive system. As the capsule passes through the bowel, images are sent to a data recorder in a shoulder bag.

The trial is being conducted by the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The investigators have created a guide on using the device at home.

“Not only does colon capsule increase our diagnostic capacity, because it doesn’t require the resources of a dedicated hospital space to do the examination, it also allows us to do the examination in the patient’s home, so patients who may be shielding or cautious about going to a hospital can perform the procedure in the comfort of their own homes,” commented Ed Seward, MD, PhD, endoscopy lead at UCL.

The move is in response to a surge in patients coming forward for cancer checks after the slowdown in cancer services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2020, more than 200,000 people came forward, an increase of 13,000 over the same month the previous year.

Traditional endoscopy services are still being offered, although endoscopies take longer to conduct because of infection control measures that must be employed to ensure that patients who undergo endoscopies do not develop COVID-19. This, in turn, means fewer people can undergo endoscopies over a given period.

“We welcome any initiative that seeks to simplify and improve the early diagnosis of gastrointestinal disease and, in particular, colorectal cancer, which unfortunately is still responsible for many avoidable deaths,” said Alastair McKinlay, MD, president of the British Society of Gastroenterology.

“Colon capsule is a promising new technology that may offer a real advantage for some patients. For this reason, we welcome the opportunity for a proper service evaluation so that both the limitations and advantages of this technique can be properly assessed,” he said.

“This has the potential to make a huge difference for people with bowel cancer symptoms and could help the NHS to prioritize those who urgently need further tests,” added Genevieve Edwards, chief executive at Bowel Cancer UK.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A miniature camera the size of a capsule that is swallowed and then transmits images of the inside of the gut can reveal cancer and gastrointestinal diseases. The device, which will be studied in a trial conducted by the National Health Service in England, is used by patients at home as a substitute for endoscopy.

“What sounds like sci-fi is now becoming a reality,” said Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England. “These minute cameras pass through your body. They take two pictures per second, checking for signs of cancer and other conditions like Crohn’s disease.”

The trial, announced on March 11, 2021, will initially involve 11,000 patients from 40 regions in England. Participants will be sent the colon capsule endoscopy to use at home.

The capsule typically takes 5-8 hours to pass through the digestive system. As the capsule passes through the bowel, images are sent to a data recorder in a shoulder bag.

The trial is being conducted by the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The investigators have created a guide on using the device at home.

“Not only does colon capsule increase our diagnostic capacity, because it doesn’t require the resources of a dedicated hospital space to do the examination, it also allows us to do the examination in the patient’s home, so patients who may be shielding or cautious about going to a hospital can perform the procedure in the comfort of their own homes,” commented Ed Seward, MD, PhD, endoscopy lead at UCL.

The move is in response to a surge in patients coming forward for cancer checks after the slowdown in cancer services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2020, more than 200,000 people came forward, an increase of 13,000 over the same month the previous year.

Traditional endoscopy services are still being offered, although endoscopies take longer to conduct because of infection control measures that must be employed to ensure that patients who undergo endoscopies do not develop COVID-19. This, in turn, means fewer people can undergo endoscopies over a given period.

“We welcome any initiative that seeks to simplify and improve the early diagnosis of gastrointestinal disease and, in particular, colorectal cancer, which unfortunately is still responsible for many avoidable deaths,” said Alastair McKinlay, MD, president of the British Society of Gastroenterology.

“Colon capsule is a promising new technology that may offer a real advantage for some patients. For this reason, we welcome the opportunity for a proper service evaluation so that both the limitations and advantages of this technique can be properly assessed,” he said.

“This has the potential to make a huge difference for people with bowel cancer symptoms and could help the NHS to prioritize those who urgently need further tests,” added Genevieve Edwards, chief executive at Bowel Cancer UK.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A miniature camera the size of a capsule that is swallowed and then transmits images of the inside of the gut can reveal cancer and gastrointestinal diseases. The device, which will be studied in a trial conducted by the National Health Service in England, is used by patients at home as a substitute for endoscopy.

“What sounds like sci-fi is now becoming a reality,” said Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England. “These minute cameras pass through your body. They take two pictures per second, checking for signs of cancer and other conditions like Crohn’s disease.”

The trial, announced on March 11, 2021, will initially involve 11,000 patients from 40 regions in England. Participants will be sent the colon capsule endoscopy to use at home.

The capsule typically takes 5-8 hours to pass through the digestive system. As the capsule passes through the bowel, images are sent to a data recorder in a shoulder bag.

The trial is being conducted by the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The investigators have created a guide on using the device at home.

“Not only does colon capsule increase our diagnostic capacity, because it doesn’t require the resources of a dedicated hospital space to do the examination, it also allows us to do the examination in the patient’s home, so patients who may be shielding or cautious about going to a hospital can perform the procedure in the comfort of their own homes,” commented Ed Seward, MD, PhD, endoscopy lead at UCL.

The move is in response to a surge in patients coming forward for cancer checks after the slowdown in cancer services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2020, more than 200,000 people came forward, an increase of 13,000 over the same month the previous year.

Traditional endoscopy services are still being offered, although endoscopies take longer to conduct because of infection control measures that must be employed to ensure that patients who undergo endoscopies do not develop COVID-19. This, in turn, means fewer people can undergo endoscopies over a given period.

“We welcome any initiative that seeks to simplify and improve the early diagnosis of gastrointestinal disease and, in particular, colorectal cancer, which unfortunately is still responsible for many avoidable deaths,” said Alastair McKinlay, MD, president of the British Society of Gastroenterology.

“Colon capsule is a promising new technology that may offer a real advantage for some patients. For this reason, we welcome the opportunity for a proper service evaluation so that both the limitations and advantages of this technique can be properly assessed,” he said.

“This has the potential to make a huge difference for people with bowel cancer symptoms and could help the NHS to prioritize those who urgently need further tests,” added Genevieve Edwards, chief executive at Bowel Cancer UK.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer-term survival with immunotherapy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is once again being applauded by experts in the field.

This time, the data come from trials that tested immunotherapy in the second-line setting for patients who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. The latest 5-year follow-up from two landmark trials, one with pembrolizumab, the other with nivolumab, show that the survival benefit can persist for years after treatment is stopped.

“These are unprecedented data,” Fred R. Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in either trial and was approached for comment.
 

Pembrolizumab survival data

The new longer-term data on pembrolizumab come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, which included more than 1,000 patients with advanced NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab or docetaxel for 2 years.

This is the latest update on data from this trial, which has been described as “really extraordinary.”

The 5-year overall survival rates were more than doubled in the pembrolizumab groups, compared with the docetaxel group, reported Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, department of medical oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.. He was presenting the new data at the recent World Conference on Lung Cancer 2020.

Overall results for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) expression greater than 1% show that 15.6% of the pembrolizumab group were still alive at 5 years versus 6.5% of the docetaxel group.

The results were even better among patients who had high PD-L1 TPS expression (>50%): in this subgroup, 25% of the patients who received pembrolizumab were still alive versus 8.2% of those who received docetaxel.

In addition, at 5 years, 9.4% of patients who received pembrolizumab were disease free versus 0.7% of the patients who received docetaxel, Dr. Herbst reported.

Dr. Hirsch commented that the 5-year survival rate of 25% among patients with high PD-L1 expression who underwent treatment with pembrolizumab is “great progress in lung cancer treatment, there is no doubt about it.”

He noted that the results also show that “numerically,” it matters whether patients have low PD-L1 expression. “We know from first-line studies that pembrolizumab monotherapy is effective in high PD-L1–expressing tumors, so these data fit very well,” he said.

At the meeting, Dr. Herbst summarized his presentation on pembrolizumab for patients with NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment, saying that, “with 5 years of follow-up, we continue to see a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and PFS [progression-free survival].

“Pembrolizumab monotherapy is a standard of care in patients with immunotherapy-naive or previously treated PD-L1–positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer,” Herbst stated.

Dr. Hirsch was largely in agreement. He believes that, for patients with a PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%, the standard of care “is practically pembrolizumab monotherapy, unless there are certain circumstances where you would add chemotherapy,” such as for patients with a high tumor volume, “where you want to see a very quick response.”

Dr. Hirsch pointed out, however, that currently most patients with high PD-L1–expressing tumors are given pembrolizumab in the first line, which begs the question as to what to give those who experience disease progression after immunotherapy.

“That is an open space,” he said. “There is a lot of studies going on in what we call the immunotherapy-refractory patients.

“We don’t have clear guidance for clinical practice yet,” he commented. He noted that there are several options: “Do you continue with chemotherapy? Do you continue with chemotherapy plus another immunotherapy? Do you switch to another immunotherapy?”

Commenting on Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said the results were “very exciting.”

However, he wondered whether the results suggest that patients with high PD-L1 expression “may be able to stop” receiving pembrolizumab, whereas those with disease of lower expression “may need longer therapy.”

H. Jack West, MD, medical director of the thoracic oncology program, Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, said on Twitter that, to him, the “most impressive” aspect was the “new insight about patients stopping pembro after 2 years but still having two-thirds with sustained response.”

He added that he would “love to learn which patients can stop therapy and when, or whether we can do infrequent maintenance IO [immunotherapy].”

 

Nivolumab survival data

The data on nivolumab come from a pooled analysis of 5-year data on 854 patients from CheckMate 057 and CheckMate 017. The analysis was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on Jan. 15, 2021.

Both of these trials compared nivolumab with docetaxel for patients with NSCLC who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy.

The pooled analysis showed that the 5-year overall survival rate was more than fivefold greater with nivolumab than with docetaxel, at 13.4% versus 2.6%.

Moreover, more than 80% of patients who had not experienced progression with the immunotherapy at 2 years were still alive at 5 years. The percentage rose to more than 90% among those who had not experienced progression at 3 years.

Lead author Julie R. Brahmer, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues said the results “demonstrate that nivolumab can provide long-term survival benefit with durable responses and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC.

“Furthermore, some patients appear to maintain prolonged disease control even after stopping systemic therapy,” they noted.

Dr. Hirsch commented that, although the survival rates with nivolumab were slightly lower than reported with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-010, they could still be “within the range.” He added that “I wouldn’t conclude that pembrolizumab is better than nivolumab.”

Many factors may account for these differences, he suggested, including differences in the patient populations or simply differences in the numbers of patients included.

For him, the “main point” of the new data from both trials is that immunotherapy has shown “tremendous progress, compared to chemotherapy.”

KEYNOTE-010 was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme. CheckMate 017 and CheckMate057 were sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herbst has relationships with Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, AbbVie, Biodesix, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Heat Biologics, Loxo, Nektar, NextCure, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Tesaro, Neon Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Armo Biosciences, Genmab, Halozyme, and Tocagen. Dr. Brahmer has relationships with Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Celgene, Syndax, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Amgen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Revolution, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer-term survival with immunotherapy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is once again being applauded by experts in the field.

This time, the data come from trials that tested immunotherapy in the second-line setting for patients who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. The latest 5-year follow-up from two landmark trials, one with pembrolizumab, the other with nivolumab, show that the survival benefit can persist for years after treatment is stopped.

“These are unprecedented data,” Fred R. Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in either trial and was approached for comment.
 

Pembrolizumab survival data

The new longer-term data on pembrolizumab come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, which included more than 1,000 patients with advanced NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab or docetaxel for 2 years.

This is the latest update on data from this trial, which has been described as “really extraordinary.”

The 5-year overall survival rates were more than doubled in the pembrolizumab groups, compared with the docetaxel group, reported Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, department of medical oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.. He was presenting the new data at the recent World Conference on Lung Cancer 2020.

Overall results for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) expression greater than 1% show that 15.6% of the pembrolizumab group were still alive at 5 years versus 6.5% of the docetaxel group.

The results were even better among patients who had high PD-L1 TPS expression (>50%): in this subgroup, 25% of the patients who received pembrolizumab were still alive versus 8.2% of those who received docetaxel.

In addition, at 5 years, 9.4% of patients who received pembrolizumab were disease free versus 0.7% of the patients who received docetaxel, Dr. Herbst reported.

Dr. Hirsch commented that the 5-year survival rate of 25% among patients with high PD-L1 expression who underwent treatment with pembrolizumab is “great progress in lung cancer treatment, there is no doubt about it.”

He noted that the results also show that “numerically,” it matters whether patients have low PD-L1 expression. “We know from first-line studies that pembrolizumab monotherapy is effective in high PD-L1–expressing tumors, so these data fit very well,” he said.

At the meeting, Dr. Herbst summarized his presentation on pembrolizumab for patients with NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment, saying that, “with 5 years of follow-up, we continue to see a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and PFS [progression-free survival].

“Pembrolizumab monotherapy is a standard of care in patients with immunotherapy-naive or previously treated PD-L1–positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer,” Herbst stated.

Dr. Hirsch was largely in agreement. He believes that, for patients with a PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%, the standard of care “is practically pembrolizumab monotherapy, unless there are certain circumstances where you would add chemotherapy,” such as for patients with a high tumor volume, “where you want to see a very quick response.”

Dr. Hirsch pointed out, however, that currently most patients with high PD-L1–expressing tumors are given pembrolizumab in the first line, which begs the question as to what to give those who experience disease progression after immunotherapy.

“That is an open space,” he said. “There is a lot of studies going on in what we call the immunotherapy-refractory patients.

“We don’t have clear guidance for clinical practice yet,” he commented. He noted that there are several options: “Do you continue with chemotherapy? Do you continue with chemotherapy plus another immunotherapy? Do you switch to another immunotherapy?”

Commenting on Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said the results were “very exciting.”

However, he wondered whether the results suggest that patients with high PD-L1 expression “may be able to stop” receiving pembrolizumab, whereas those with disease of lower expression “may need longer therapy.”

H. Jack West, MD, medical director of the thoracic oncology program, Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, said on Twitter that, to him, the “most impressive” aspect was the “new insight about patients stopping pembro after 2 years but still having two-thirds with sustained response.”

He added that he would “love to learn which patients can stop therapy and when, or whether we can do infrequent maintenance IO [immunotherapy].”

 

Nivolumab survival data

The data on nivolumab come from a pooled analysis of 5-year data on 854 patients from CheckMate 057 and CheckMate 017. The analysis was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on Jan. 15, 2021.

Both of these trials compared nivolumab with docetaxel for patients with NSCLC who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy.

The pooled analysis showed that the 5-year overall survival rate was more than fivefold greater with nivolumab than with docetaxel, at 13.4% versus 2.6%.

Moreover, more than 80% of patients who had not experienced progression with the immunotherapy at 2 years were still alive at 5 years. The percentage rose to more than 90% among those who had not experienced progression at 3 years.

Lead author Julie R. Brahmer, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues said the results “demonstrate that nivolumab can provide long-term survival benefit with durable responses and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC.

“Furthermore, some patients appear to maintain prolonged disease control even after stopping systemic therapy,” they noted.

Dr. Hirsch commented that, although the survival rates with nivolumab were slightly lower than reported with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-010, they could still be “within the range.” He added that “I wouldn’t conclude that pembrolizumab is better than nivolumab.”

Many factors may account for these differences, he suggested, including differences in the patient populations or simply differences in the numbers of patients included.

For him, the “main point” of the new data from both trials is that immunotherapy has shown “tremendous progress, compared to chemotherapy.”

KEYNOTE-010 was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme. CheckMate 017 and CheckMate057 were sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herbst has relationships with Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, AbbVie, Biodesix, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Heat Biologics, Loxo, Nektar, NextCure, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Tesaro, Neon Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Armo Biosciences, Genmab, Halozyme, and Tocagen. Dr. Brahmer has relationships with Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Celgene, Syndax, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Amgen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Revolution, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer-term survival with immunotherapy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is once again being applauded by experts in the field.

This time, the data come from trials that tested immunotherapy in the second-line setting for patients who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. The latest 5-year follow-up from two landmark trials, one with pembrolizumab, the other with nivolumab, show that the survival benefit can persist for years after treatment is stopped.

“These are unprecedented data,” Fred R. Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in either trial and was approached for comment.
 

Pembrolizumab survival data

The new longer-term data on pembrolizumab come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, which included more than 1,000 patients with advanced NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab or docetaxel for 2 years.

This is the latest update on data from this trial, which has been described as “really extraordinary.”

The 5-year overall survival rates were more than doubled in the pembrolizumab groups, compared with the docetaxel group, reported Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, department of medical oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.. He was presenting the new data at the recent World Conference on Lung Cancer 2020.

Overall results for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) expression greater than 1% show that 15.6% of the pembrolizumab group were still alive at 5 years versus 6.5% of the docetaxel group.

The results were even better among patients who had high PD-L1 TPS expression (>50%): in this subgroup, 25% of the patients who received pembrolizumab were still alive versus 8.2% of those who received docetaxel.

In addition, at 5 years, 9.4% of patients who received pembrolizumab were disease free versus 0.7% of the patients who received docetaxel, Dr. Herbst reported.

Dr. Hirsch commented that the 5-year survival rate of 25% among patients with high PD-L1 expression who underwent treatment with pembrolizumab is “great progress in lung cancer treatment, there is no doubt about it.”

He noted that the results also show that “numerically,” it matters whether patients have low PD-L1 expression. “We know from first-line studies that pembrolizumab monotherapy is effective in high PD-L1–expressing tumors, so these data fit very well,” he said.

At the meeting, Dr. Herbst summarized his presentation on pembrolizumab for patients with NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment, saying that, “with 5 years of follow-up, we continue to see a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and PFS [progression-free survival].

“Pembrolizumab monotherapy is a standard of care in patients with immunotherapy-naive or previously treated PD-L1–positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer,” Herbst stated.

Dr. Hirsch was largely in agreement. He believes that, for patients with a PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%, the standard of care “is practically pembrolizumab monotherapy, unless there are certain circumstances where you would add chemotherapy,” such as for patients with a high tumor volume, “where you want to see a very quick response.”

Dr. Hirsch pointed out, however, that currently most patients with high PD-L1–expressing tumors are given pembrolizumab in the first line, which begs the question as to what to give those who experience disease progression after immunotherapy.

“That is an open space,” he said. “There is a lot of studies going on in what we call the immunotherapy-refractory patients.

“We don’t have clear guidance for clinical practice yet,” he commented. He noted that there are several options: “Do you continue with chemotherapy? Do you continue with chemotherapy plus another immunotherapy? Do you switch to another immunotherapy?”

Commenting on Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said the results were “very exciting.”

However, he wondered whether the results suggest that patients with high PD-L1 expression “may be able to stop” receiving pembrolizumab, whereas those with disease of lower expression “may need longer therapy.”

H. Jack West, MD, medical director of the thoracic oncology program, Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, said on Twitter that, to him, the “most impressive” aspect was the “new insight about patients stopping pembro after 2 years but still having two-thirds with sustained response.”

He added that he would “love to learn which patients can stop therapy and when, or whether we can do infrequent maintenance IO [immunotherapy].”

 

Nivolumab survival data

The data on nivolumab come from a pooled analysis of 5-year data on 854 patients from CheckMate 057 and CheckMate 017. The analysis was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on Jan. 15, 2021.

Both of these trials compared nivolumab with docetaxel for patients with NSCLC who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy.

The pooled analysis showed that the 5-year overall survival rate was more than fivefold greater with nivolumab than with docetaxel, at 13.4% versus 2.6%.

Moreover, more than 80% of patients who had not experienced progression with the immunotherapy at 2 years were still alive at 5 years. The percentage rose to more than 90% among those who had not experienced progression at 3 years.

Lead author Julie R. Brahmer, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues said the results “demonstrate that nivolumab can provide long-term survival benefit with durable responses and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC.

“Furthermore, some patients appear to maintain prolonged disease control even after stopping systemic therapy,” they noted.

Dr. Hirsch commented that, although the survival rates with nivolumab were slightly lower than reported with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-010, they could still be “within the range.” He added that “I wouldn’t conclude that pembrolizumab is better than nivolumab.”

Many factors may account for these differences, he suggested, including differences in the patient populations or simply differences in the numbers of patients included.

For him, the “main point” of the new data from both trials is that immunotherapy has shown “tremendous progress, compared to chemotherapy.”

KEYNOTE-010 was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme. CheckMate 017 and CheckMate057 were sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herbst has relationships with Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, AbbVie, Biodesix, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Heat Biologics, Loxo, Nektar, NextCure, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Tesaro, Neon Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Armo Biosciences, Genmab, Halozyme, and Tocagen. Dr. Brahmer has relationships with Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Celgene, Syndax, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Amgen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Revolution, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has thus far been targeted at individuals who smoke or have smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer has been found to be increasing among people who have never smoked, and they too should undergo screening, suggest researchers from Taiwan.

“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.

In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.

The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.

At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”

The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.

Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.

These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.

The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.

The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.

Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
 

More research needed

The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.

However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”

There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.

On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”

Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.

She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.

Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.

“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
 

Details of TALENT findings

The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.

Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.

They also had to have one of the following risk factors:

• Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
• Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
• Chronic lung disease, namely,  or .
• A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
• Cooking without ventilation.

The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.

Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.

Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.

Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.

Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.

Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.

Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.

Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.

Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.

The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).

The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.

The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).

The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).

The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.

The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has thus far been targeted at individuals who smoke or have smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer has been found to be increasing among people who have never smoked, and they too should undergo screening, suggest researchers from Taiwan.

“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.

In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.

The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.

At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”

The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.

Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.

These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.

The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.

The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.

Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
 

More research needed

The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.

However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”

There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.

On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”

Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.

She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.

Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.

“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
 

Details of TALENT findings

The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.

Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.

They also had to have one of the following risk factors:

• Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
• Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
• Chronic lung disease, namely,  or .
• A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
• Cooking without ventilation.

The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.

Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.

Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.

Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.

Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.

Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.

Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.

Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.

Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.

The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).

The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.

The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).

The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).

The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.

The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has thus far been targeted at individuals who smoke or have smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer has been found to be increasing among people who have never smoked, and they too should undergo screening, suggest researchers from Taiwan.

“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.

In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.

The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.

At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”

The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.

Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.

These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.

The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.

The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.

Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
 

More research needed

The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.

However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”

There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.

On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”

Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.

She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.

Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.

“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
 

Details of TALENT findings

The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.

Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.

They also had to have one of the following risk factors:

• Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
• Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
• Chronic lung disease, namely,  or .
• A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
• Cooking without ventilation.

The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.

Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.

Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.

Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.

Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.

Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.

Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.

Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.

Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.

The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).

The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.

The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).

The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).

The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.

The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.

The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.

The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.

“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.

“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.

Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.

“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.

“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
 

Study details

This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.

Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.

The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.

The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.

The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.

Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.

The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.

Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.

Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.

Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.

The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.

Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.

In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.

Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.

However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.

The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.

This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.

The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.

“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.

The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.

The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.

“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.

“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.

Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.

“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.

“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
 

Study details

This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.

Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.

The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.

The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.

The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.

Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.

The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.

Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.

Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.

Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.

The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.

Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.

In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.

Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.

However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.

The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.

This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.

The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.

“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.

The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.

The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.

“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.

“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.

Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.

“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.

“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
 

Study details

This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.

Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.

The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.

The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.

The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.

Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.

The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.

Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.

Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.

Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.

The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.

Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.

In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.

Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.

However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.

The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.

This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.

The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.

“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.