User login
VIDEO: Watson helps oncologists sleuth out best options in breast cancer
SAN ANTONIO – Every day, practicing oncologists sort through mountains of data from treatment guidelines, clinical trials, protocols, and algorithms to make the best possible therapeutic decisions for their patients.
At Manipal Hospitals in Bangalore, India, those decisions are informed with the aid of Watson for Oncology (WFO), a software platform developed by IBM in concert with clinicians and investigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
In this video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, S.P. Somashekhar, MBBS, MS, MCH, chairman of the Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses how the system is used by the members of the center’s multidisciplinary tumor board to inform decision making. He also describes results of a study he presented at the symposium that shows a relatively high degree of concordance between clinician and WFO choices in the treatment of patients with local breast cancer but less agreement when it comes to the management of metastatic disease, for which there is no universal standard of care.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN ANTONIO – Every day, practicing oncologists sort through mountains of data from treatment guidelines, clinical trials, protocols, and algorithms to make the best possible therapeutic decisions for their patients.
At Manipal Hospitals in Bangalore, India, those decisions are informed with the aid of Watson for Oncology (WFO), a software platform developed by IBM in concert with clinicians and investigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
In this video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, S.P. Somashekhar, MBBS, MS, MCH, chairman of the Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses how the system is used by the members of the center’s multidisciplinary tumor board to inform decision making. He also describes results of a study he presented at the symposium that shows a relatively high degree of concordance between clinician and WFO choices in the treatment of patients with local breast cancer but less agreement when it comes to the management of metastatic disease, for which there is no universal standard of care.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN ANTONIO – Every day, practicing oncologists sort through mountains of data from treatment guidelines, clinical trials, protocols, and algorithms to make the best possible therapeutic decisions for their patients.
At Manipal Hospitals in Bangalore, India, those decisions are informed with the aid of Watson for Oncology (WFO), a software platform developed by IBM in concert with clinicians and investigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
In this video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, S.P. Somashekhar, MBBS, MS, MCH, chairman of the Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses how the system is used by the members of the center’s multidisciplinary tumor board to inform decision making. He also describes results of a study he presented at the symposium that shows a relatively high degree of concordance between clinician and WFO choices in the treatment of patients with local breast cancer but less agreement when it comes to the management of metastatic disease, for which there is no universal standard of care.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT SABCS 2016
PIK3 inhibitor gives slight PFS edge at high cost for HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer
SAN ANTONIO – A combination of a PI3K inhibitor and selective estrogen receptor down-regulator (SERD) met its primary endpoint of 2.1 months better progression-free survival (PFS) in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who were quickly running out of other treatment options.
Yet the small gain in PFS came at a very high price in terms of toxicities, including mood disorders that may have led to patient suicide attempts, according to investigators.
The BELLE-3 trial looked at the combination of the SERD fulvestrant (Faslodex) and an experimental inhibitor of the PI3 kinase, buparlisib, in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer treated with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) who experienced disease progression either on or after receiving therapy with an inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1).
The combination of fulvestrant and buparlisib was associated with a median PFS of 3.9 months, compared with 1.8 months for fulvestrant and placebo (P less than .001), Angelo Di Leo, MD, of Ospedale Misericordia e Dolce in Prato, Italy, reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium,
Objective response rates (ORR) were low, at 7.8% in the combination arm, and 2.1% in the fulvestrant-plus-placebo arm.
Although the PFS difference was statistically significant, “the higher rate of toxicity in patients receiving buparlisib and fulvestrant, including transaminase elevations and mood disorders, may represent a clinically relevant challenge for future development of this compound in this particular group of patients,” Dr. Di Leo said.
Blocks AKT pathway
The preclinical rationale for the use of a P13K inhibitor after disease progression on mTORC1 inhibitor is that current mTOR inhibitors such as everolimus have a feedback mechanism that activates the AKT pathway, and that the use of P13K inhibitors can “abrogate or attenuate this activation, potentially blocking that pathway,” explained coinvestigator Ruth O’Regan, MD, head of the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison School of Medicine and Public Health. Dr. O’Regan discussed the BELLE-3 findings in a briefing prior to Dr. Di Leo’s presentation of the data in general session.
In BELLE-3, 432 postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2-, AI-pretreated, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that had progressed on or after treatment with an mTOR inhibitor as the last line of therapy were enrolled. The patients were stratified by the presence or absence of visceral disease and then randomized on a 2:1 basis to fulvestrant 500 mg daily plus either buparlisib 100 mg/day (289 patients), or placebo (143).
As noted, the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS favored the addition of buparlisib, with a hazard ratio for progression of 0.67 (P less than .001). PFS results by independent central review were similar (HR 0.57, P less than .001).
The ORR for the buparlisib/fulvestrant combination, 7.6%, consisted of 0.3% complete responses, and 7.3% partial responses. The ORR for placebo/fulvestrant, 2.1%, was composed entirely of partial responses. The respective clinical benefit rates, defined as a combination of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 24.6% and 15.4.
The benefit of buparlisib was evidently entirely among patients with visceral disease, with a PFS of 3.1 vs. 1.5 months. In contrast, PFS among patients with no visceral disease was 4.2 vs. 4.1 months, respectively, and was not significant.
In addition, the P13K inhibitor seemed to benefit patients with PIK3CA mutations detected in either the primary tumor or in circulating DNA samples, but not patients with wild-type PIK3CA.
Depression, anxiety with combination
Patients assigned to buparlisib/fulvestrant had substantially higher proportions of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevations compared with patients on placebo fulvestrant, as well as more reported depression and anxiety. Three patients in the buparlisib arm attempted suicide. There were no reported suicide attempts in the placebo arm.
Dr. O’Regan said at the briefing that mood disorders are known adverse events associated with buparlisib, and that patients with psychiatric disorders were excluded from the trial.
Carlos Arteaga, MD, co-leader of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., who moderated the briefing, said in an interview that PI kinase mutations do not appear to be a good target, and that a pan-PIK3 inhibitor such as buparlisib may be hitting too many targets at once.
Inhibiting all of the PIK3 isoforms – alpha, beta, gamma, and delta – “may be a little too tough,” he said.
The trial should serve as impetus for developing agents that inhibit only the alpha isoform of PIK3 which mutates and appears to be the driver of some types of breast cancer, he said.
Following Dr. Di Leo’s presentation, perennial SABCS gadfly Steven Vogl, MD, New York, told the speaker that “you presented this very nicely, it’s very interesting biology. I don’t think you’d want to do this again to a human, right? Three month prolongation in PFS, miserable, with diarrhea, depression – you don’t want to do this again, is that correct?”
“I think buparlisib is probably not the best compound to be used in this particular setting of patients,” Dr. Di Leo said, but added that a better-tolerated PI3K inhibitor might be more effective.
“Actually, the study is raising an important question: Should we use the PI3K inhibitor in place of the mTOR inhibitor, or perhaps, as the study suggests, should we use the P13K inhibitors sequentially, after the mTOR inhibitor. This is an open question,” he replied.
Novartis sponsored the study. Dr. Di Leo disclosed consulting and lecture fees from the company, and Dr. O’Regan disclosed contracted research support. Dr. Arteaga reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
SAN ANTONIO – A combination of a PI3K inhibitor and selective estrogen receptor down-regulator (SERD) met its primary endpoint of 2.1 months better progression-free survival (PFS) in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who were quickly running out of other treatment options.
Yet the small gain in PFS came at a very high price in terms of toxicities, including mood disorders that may have led to patient suicide attempts, according to investigators.
The BELLE-3 trial looked at the combination of the SERD fulvestrant (Faslodex) and an experimental inhibitor of the PI3 kinase, buparlisib, in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer treated with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) who experienced disease progression either on or after receiving therapy with an inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1).
The combination of fulvestrant and buparlisib was associated with a median PFS of 3.9 months, compared with 1.8 months for fulvestrant and placebo (P less than .001), Angelo Di Leo, MD, of Ospedale Misericordia e Dolce in Prato, Italy, reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium,
Objective response rates (ORR) were low, at 7.8% in the combination arm, and 2.1% in the fulvestrant-plus-placebo arm.
Although the PFS difference was statistically significant, “the higher rate of toxicity in patients receiving buparlisib and fulvestrant, including transaminase elevations and mood disorders, may represent a clinically relevant challenge for future development of this compound in this particular group of patients,” Dr. Di Leo said.
Blocks AKT pathway
The preclinical rationale for the use of a P13K inhibitor after disease progression on mTORC1 inhibitor is that current mTOR inhibitors such as everolimus have a feedback mechanism that activates the AKT pathway, and that the use of P13K inhibitors can “abrogate or attenuate this activation, potentially blocking that pathway,” explained coinvestigator Ruth O’Regan, MD, head of the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison School of Medicine and Public Health. Dr. O’Regan discussed the BELLE-3 findings in a briefing prior to Dr. Di Leo’s presentation of the data in general session.
In BELLE-3, 432 postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2-, AI-pretreated, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that had progressed on or after treatment with an mTOR inhibitor as the last line of therapy were enrolled. The patients were stratified by the presence or absence of visceral disease and then randomized on a 2:1 basis to fulvestrant 500 mg daily plus either buparlisib 100 mg/day (289 patients), or placebo (143).
As noted, the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS favored the addition of buparlisib, with a hazard ratio for progression of 0.67 (P less than .001). PFS results by independent central review were similar (HR 0.57, P less than .001).
The ORR for the buparlisib/fulvestrant combination, 7.6%, consisted of 0.3% complete responses, and 7.3% partial responses. The ORR for placebo/fulvestrant, 2.1%, was composed entirely of partial responses. The respective clinical benefit rates, defined as a combination of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 24.6% and 15.4.
The benefit of buparlisib was evidently entirely among patients with visceral disease, with a PFS of 3.1 vs. 1.5 months. In contrast, PFS among patients with no visceral disease was 4.2 vs. 4.1 months, respectively, and was not significant.
In addition, the P13K inhibitor seemed to benefit patients with PIK3CA mutations detected in either the primary tumor or in circulating DNA samples, but not patients with wild-type PIK3CA.
Depression, anxiety with combination
Patients assigned to buparlisib/fulvestrant had substantially higher proportions of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevations compared with patients on placebo fulvestrant, as well as more reported depression and anxiety. Three patients in the buparlisib arm attempted suicide. There were no reported suicide attempts in the placebo arm.
Dr. O’Regan said at the briefing that mood disorders are known adverse events associated with buparlisib, and that patients with psychiatric disorders were excluded from the trial.
Carlos Arteaga, MD, co-leader of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., who moderated the briefing, said in an interview that PI kinase mutations do not appear to be a good target, and that a pan-PIK3 inhibitor such as buparlisib may be hitting too many targets at once.
Inhibiting all of the PIK3 isoforms – alpha, beta, gamma, and delta – “may be a little too tough,” he said.
The trial should serve as impetus for developing agents that inhibit only the alpha isoform of PIK3 which mutates and appears to be the driver of some types of breast cancer, he said.
Following Dr. Di Leo’s presentation, perennial SABCS gadfly Steven Vogl, MD, New York, told the speaker that “you presented this very nicely, it’s very interesting biology. I don’t think you’d want to do this again to a human, right? Three month prolongation in PFS, miserable, with diarrhea, depression – you don’t want to do this again, is that correct?”
“I think buparlisib is probably not the best compound to be used in this particular setting of patients,” Dr. Di Leo said, but added that a better-tolerated PI3K inhibitor might be more effective.
“Actually, the study is raising an important question: Should we use the PI3K inhibitor in place of the mTOR inhibitor, or perhaps, as the study suggests, should we use the P13K inhibitors sequentially, after the mTOR inhibitor. This is an open question,” he replied.
Novartis sponsored the study. Dr. Di Leo disclosed consulting and lecture fees from the company, and Dr. O’Regan disclosed contracted research support. Dr. Arteaga reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
SAN ANTONIO – A combination of a PI3K inhibitor and selective estrogen receptor down-regulator (SERD) met its primary endpoint of 2.1 months better progression-free survival (PFS) in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who were quickly running out of other treatment options.
Yet the small gain in PFS came at a very high price in terms of toxicities, including mood disorders that may have led to patient suicide attempts, according to investigators.
The BELLE-3 trial looked at the combination of the SERD fulvestrant (Faslodex) and an experimental inhibitor of the PI3 kinase, buparlisib, in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer treated with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) who experienced disease progression either on or after receiving therapy with an inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1).
The combination of fulvestrant and buparlisib was associated with a median PFS of 3.9 months, compared with 1.8 months for fulvestrant and placebo (P less than .001), Angelo Di Leo, MD, of Ospedale Misericordia e Dolce in Prato, Italy, reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium,
Objective response rates (ORR) were low, at 7.8% in the combination arm, and 2.1% in the fulvestrant-plus-placebo arm.
Although the PFS difference was statistically significant, “the higher rate of toxicity in patients receiving buparlisib and fulvestrant, including transaminase elevations and mood disorders, may represent a clinically relevant challenge for future development of this compound in this particular group of patients,” Dr. Di Leo said.
Blocks AKT pathway
The preclinical rationale for the use of a P13K inhibitor after disease progression on mTORC1 inhibitor is that current mTOR inhibitors such as everolimus have a feedback mechanism that activates the AKT pathway, and that the use of P13K inhibitors can “abrogate or attenuate this activation, potentially blocking that pathway,” explained coinvestigator Ruth O’Regan, MD, head of the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison School of Medicine and Public Health. Dr. O’Regan discussed the BELLE-3 findings in a briefing prior to Dr. Di Leo’s presentation of the data in general session.
In BELLE-3, 432 postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2-, AI-pretreated, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that had progressed on or after treatment with an mTOR inhibitor as the last line of therapy were enrolled. The patients were stratified by the presence or absence of visceral disease and then randomized on a 2:1 basis to fulvestrant 500 mg daily plus either buparlisib 100 mg/day (289 patients), or placebo (143).
As noted, the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS favored the addition of buparlisib, with a hazard ratio for progression of 0.67 (P less than .001). PFS results by independent central review were similar (HR 0.57, P less than .001).
The ORR for the buparlisib/fulvestrant combination, 7.6%, consisted of 0.3% complete responses, and 7.3% partial responses. The ORR for placebo/fulvestrant, 2.1%, was composed entirely of partial responses. The respective clinical benefit rates, defined as a combination of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 24.6% and 15.4.
The benefit of buparlisib was evidently entirely among patients with visceral disease, with a PFS of 3.1 vs. 1.5 months. In contrast, PFS among patients with no visceral disease was 4.2 vs. 4.1 months, respectively, and was not significant.
In addition, the P13K inhibitor seemed to benefit patients with PIK3CA mutations detected in either the primary tumor or in circulating DNA samples, but not patients with wild-type PIK3CA.
Depression, anxiety with combination
Patients assigned to buparlisib/fulvestrant had substantially higher proportions of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevations compared with patients on placebo fulvestrant, as well as more reported depression and anxiety. Three patients in the buparlisib arm attempted suicide. There were no reported suicide attempts in the placebo arm.
Dr. O’Regan said at the briefing that mood disorders are known adverse events associated with buparlisib, and that patients with psychiatric disorders were excluded from the trial.
Carlos Arteaga, MD, co-leader of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., who moderated the briefing, said in an interview that PI kinase mutations do not appear to be a good target, and that a pan-PIK3 inhibitor such as buparlisib may be hitting too many targets at once.
Inhibiting all of the PIK3 isoforms – alpha, beta, gamma, and delta – “may be a little too tough,” he said.
The trial should serve as impetus for developing agents that inhibit only the alpha isoform of PIK3 which mutates and appears to be the driver of some types of breast cancer, he said.
Following Dr. Di Leo’s presentation, perennial SABCS gadfly Steven Vogl, MD, New York, told the speaker that “you presented this very nicely, it’s very interesting biology. I don’t think you’d want to do this again to a human, right? Three month prolongation in PFS, miserable, with diarrhea, depression – you don’t want to do this again, is that correct?”
“I think buparlisib is probably not the best compound to be used in this particular setting of patients,” Dr. Di Leo said, but added that a better-tolerated PI3K inhibitor might be more effective.
“Actually, the study is raising an important question: Should we use the PI3K inhibitor in place of the mTOR inhibitor, or perhaps, as the study suggests, should we use the P13K inhibitors sequentially, after the mTOR inhibitor. This is an open question,” he replied.
Novartis sponsored the study. Dr. Di Leo disclosed consulting and lecture fees from the company, and Dr. O’Regan disclosed contracted research support. Dr. Arteaga reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
AT SABCS 2016
Key clinical point: The PI3K inhibitor buparlisib plus fulvestrant slightly prolonged progression-free survival of HR+/HER2– breast cancer pretreated with an aromatase inhibitor and mTOR inhibitor.
Major finding: The combination met its primary endpoint of better PFS than fulvestrant/placebo, but with high liver toxicity and mood disorders.
Data source: Randomized phase III trial of 432 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, AI-pretreated breast cancer that progressed on or after mTOR inhibitor therapy.
Disclosures: Novartis sponsored the study. Dr. Di Leo disclosed consulting and lecture fees from the company, and Dr. O’Regan disclosed contracted research support. Dr. Arteaga reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
Novel trial aims to BEAT AML
SAN DIEGO – A multi-arm clinical trial aims to transform the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, a deadly blood cancer whose standard of care has remained essentially unchanged for 4 decades.
Launched in October 2016, the multicenter BEAT AML Master Trial is based on a simple but radical goal – turn around genomic tests of bone marrow biopsies within 7 days to allow targeted therapy, said lead investigator Brian Druker, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University Knight Cancer Institute in Portland.
Speaking at a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, he emphasized that rapid, accurate genomic testing is the only way to prescribe targeted agents for AML in time for them to help patients. “It really is about matching the right patient with the right drug,” he said. He also spoke about AML in a video interview at the conference.
That is a major departure from the current approach to treating AML, in which patients receive standard chemotherapy regimens that are toxic and largely ineffective. “Patients themselves call this barbaric therapy,” said John Byrd, MD, who is co-leading the trial on behalf of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. “In this trial, we’re going to move away from toxic therapy that is not potentially curative to give more targeted medicine instead.”
In addition to Dr. Druker’s and Dr. Byrd’s centers, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, are onboard for the study. The lead investigators hope to add another six centers to the study group and to have 10 arms of the study underway by mid-2017.
Older patients with AML find chemotherapy especially hard to tolerate and typically respond poorly. Accordingly, the trial will enroll those aged 60 years and up regardless of their genomic profile, the researchers said. Patients lacking targetable markers will be offered investigational therapies showing broad activity in AML.
Another complexity of AML is that any patient can have a variety of mutations, including some affecting only a small subset of leukemia cells, Dr. Byrd noted. Targeting those mutations cannot eradicate disease, but past trials did not rank or choose therapies based on mutation prevalence. Thus, this trial is the first to ask “which mutation is in all of the cells, which gives you the opportunity to get rid of all the disease,” he emphasized. Again, patients – not individual markers or agents – are the priority.
The study also is meant to be nimble – arms can be quickly opened or closed if bench or clinical data are promising or lackluster. This design does not preclude FDA approvals, said Louis J. DeGennaro, PhD, of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, which is sponsoring the trial. “We have worked closely with FDA to design a unique protocol that we believe will change the paradigm of AML treatment and future clinical trials,” he added. “This is an unprecedented collaboration.”
Dr. Druker agreed. “If we do this correctly, we can potentially see large effects, and that can become the impetus for rapid FDA approval of these drugs for the right patients,” he said. “That one of the things this trial is designed to do.”
Dr. DeGennaro is president and chief executive officer of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, which is sponsoring the BEAT AML Master trial. Dr. Druker disclosed ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Byrd had no relevant disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN DIEGO – A multi-arm clinical trial aims to transform the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, a deadly blood cancer whose standard of care has remained essentially unchanged for 4 decades.
Launched in October 2016, the multicenter BEAT AML Master Trial is based on a simple but radical goal – turn around genomic tests of bone marrow biopsies within 7 days to allow targeted therapy, said lead investigator Brian Druker, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University Knight Cancer Institute in Portland.
Speaking at a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, he emphasized that rapid, accurate genomic testing is the only way to prescribe targeted agents for AML in time for them to help patients. “It really is about matching the right patient with the right drug,” he said. He also spoke about AML in a video interview at the conference.
That is a major departure from the current approach to treating AML, in which patients receive standard chemotherapy regimens that are toxic and largely ineffective. “Patients themselves call this barbaric therapy,” said John Byrd, MD, who is co-leading the trial on behalf of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. “In this trial, we’re going to move away from toxic therapy that is not potentially curative to give more targeted medicine instead.”
In addition to Dr. Druker’s and Dr. Byrd’s centers, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, are onboard for the study. The lead investigators hope to add another six centers to the study group and to have 10 arms of the study underway by mid-2017.
Older patients with AML find chemotherapy especially hard to tolerate and typically respond poorly. Accordingly, the trial will enroll those aged 60 years and up regardless of their genomic profile, the researchers said. Patients lacking targetable markers will be offered investigational therapies showing broad activity in AML.
Another complexity of AML is that any patient can have a variety of mutations, including some affecting only a small subset of leukemia cells, Dr. Byrd noted. Targeting those mutations cannot eradicate disease, but past trials did not rank or choose therapies based on mutation prevalence. Thus, this trial is the first to ask “which mutation is in all of the cells, which gives you the opportunity to get rid of all the disease,” he emphasized. Again, patients – not individual markers or agents – are the priority.
The study also is meant to be nimble – arms can be quickly opened or closed if bench or clinical data are promising or lackluster. This design does not preclude FDA approvals, said Louis J. DeGennaro, PhD, of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, which is sponsoring the trial. “We have worked closely with FDA to design a unique protocol that we believe will change the paradigm of AML treatment and future clinical trials,” he added. “This is an unprecedented collaboration.”
Dr. Druker agreed. “If we do this correctly, we can potentially see large effects, and that can become the impetus for rapid FDA approval of these drugs for the right patients,” he said. “That one of the things this trial is designed to do.”
Dr. DeGennaro is president and chief executive officer of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, which is sponsoring the BEAT AML Master trial. Dr. Druker disclosed ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Byrd had no relevant disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN DIEGO – A multi-arm clinical trial aims to transform the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, a deadly blood cancer whose standard of care has remained essentially unchanged for 4 decades.
Launched in October 2016, the multicenter BEAT AML Master Trial is based on a simple but radical goal – turn around genomic tests of bone marrow biopsies within 7 days to allow targeted therapy, said lead investigator Brian Druker, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University Knight Cancer Institute in Portland.
Speaking at a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, he emphasized that rapid, accurate genomic testing is the only way to prescribe targeted agents for AML in time for them to help patients. “It really is about matching the right patient with the right drug,” he said. He also spoke about AML in a video interview at the conference.
That is a major departure from the current approach to treating AML, in which patients receive standard chemotherapy regimens that are toxic and largely ineffective. “Patients themselves call this barbaric therapy,” said John Byrd, MD, who is co-leading the trial on behalf of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. “In this trial, we’re going to move away from toxic therapy that is not potentially curative to give more targeted medicine instead.”
In addition to Dr. Druker’s and Dr. Byrd’s centers, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, are onboard for the study. The lead investigators hope to add another six centers to the study group and to have 10 arms of the study underway by mid-2017.
Older patients with AML find chemotherapy especially hard to tolerate and typically respond poorly. Accordingly, the trial will enroll those aged 60 years and up regardless of their genomic profile, the researchers said. Patients lacking targetable markers will be offered investigational therapies showing broad activity in AML.
Another complexity of AML is that any patient can have a variety of mutations, including some affecting only a small subset of leukemia cells, Dr. Byrd noted. Targeting those mutations cannot eradicate disease, but past trials did not rank or choose therapies based on mutation prevalence. Thus, this trial is the first to ask “which mutation is in all of the cells, which gives you the opportunity to get rid of all the disease,” he emphasized. Again, patients – not individual markers or agents – are the priority.
The study also is meant to be nimble – arms can be quickly opened or closed if bench or clinical data are promising or lackluster. This design does not preclude FDA approvals, said Louis J. DeGennaro, PhD, of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, which is sponsoring the trial. “We have worked closely with FDA to design a unique protocol that we believe will change the paradigm of AML treatment and future clinical trials,” he added. “This is an unprecedented collaboration.”
Dr. Druker agreed. “If we do this correctly, we can potentially see large effects, and that can become the impetus for rapid FDA approval of these drugs for the right patients,” he said. “That one of the things this trial is designed to do.”
Dr. DeGennaro is president and chief executive officer of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, which is sponsoring the BEAT AML Master trial. Dr. Druker disclosed ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Byrd had no relevant disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT ASH 2016
Lenalidomide improves PFS after 1st and 2nd line CLL therapy
SAN DIEGO – Lenalidomide, a mainstay of maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma, is now making inroads into maintenance therapy following first- and second-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported in two phase III studies.
Among patients with previously untreated CLL who were at high risk for early disease progression following standard chemotherapy, lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance therapy was associated with an 80% reduction in the relative risk for disease progression compared with placebo, reported Anna Fink, MD, of the University of Cologne, Germany, and her colleagues in the German CLL Study Group.
Similarly, lenalidomide maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo among patients with CLL who had at least partial responses to second-line therapy, reported Anna Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, and her colleagues in the CONTINUUM trial.
“Lenalidomide maintenance therapy significantly improved progression-free survival, from just about 9 months to almost 40 months when given to patients with CLL who responded to second-line therapy,” Dr. Schuh said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
Both studies were unblinded because of the superiority of lenalidomide after prespecified analyses, on the recommendation of the respective data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs).
The PFS advantage with lenalidomide seen in each study did not translate into differences in overall survival in either study, however.
Maintenance after first-line therapy
In the CLLM1 trial, Dr. Fink and her colleagues enrolled physically fit, previously untreated patients with CLL and delivered chemoimmunotherapy at the investigator’s choice: either FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab), FR (fludarabine and rituximab), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or BR (bendamustine and rituximab).
Patients who had at least a partial response after a minimum of four cycles were identified as being at high risk for progression if they had minimal residual disease (MRD) levels of at least 10-2 cells, or MRD levels from 10-4 to less than 10-2 combined with either an unmutated IGHV gene status, del(17p) or TP53 mutation at baseline.
Of 468 screened patients, 89 were deemed to have high risk disease, and these patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to maintenance with lenalidomide given 5 mg orally for the first cycle and escalated to a target dose of 15 mg by the seventh cycle, or to placebo.
Additional dose escalations could be performed based on MRD assessments every 6 months, with the drug continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also were assigned to daily low-dose aspirin or to an anticoagulation agent depending on their individual risk for thromboembolic events.
The study was stopped and unblinded after a planned interim analysis showed that the difference in PFS met the stopping boundary for efficacy.
Ultimately, 56 patients assigned to lenalidomide received study treatment, as did 29 assigned to placebo.
At a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median PFS according to independent review was not reached for lenalidomide, vs. 13.3 months for placebo. Lenalidomide was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.148 (P less than .00001), and a relative risk reduction of 80%.
Lenalidomide was also significantly better for PFS in analysis by MRD at baseline, with a PFS of 19.4 months for placebo vs. not reached among patients with less than 10-2 but more than 10-4 cells (HR, 0.125) and 3.7 vs. 32.3 months, respectively, for patients with MRD greater than 10-2 (HR 0.165).
There were three deaths (two in patients on placebo), and at the last analysis there was no difference in overall survival. In all, 42.9% of patients on lenalidomide discontinued because of adverse events, compared with 72.4% of those on placebo.
Maintenance after second-line therapy
In CONTINUUM, patients with at least a partial response after two prior lines of therapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2 were enrolled and randomized to receive either lenalidomide (160 patients) at a starting dose of 2.5 mg/day for the first 28-day cycle, 5 mg/day from cycle 2, and, if well tolerated, up to 10 mg/day from cycle 7 on, or to placebo (154 patients).
This study, as noted before, was also unblinded at the time of the primary analysis as recommended by the DSMB, after a prespecified number of events had occurred.
At a median follow-up of 31.5 months, the median PFS, a co-primary endpoint with OS, was 33.9 months in the lenalidomide arm, compared with 9.2 months in the placebo arm, translating into a HR for lenalidomide of 0.40 (P less than .001).
The lenalidomide advantage also was seen in a subgroup analysis by age, prior response to chemotherapy, and number of factors for poor prognosis. Of note, among patients older than age 70, the PFS with lenalidomide was 52.5 months, compared with 7.3 months for placebo (HR 0.34, P = .005).
In a second PFS analysis conducted after 71 months of follow-up, lenalidomide remained superior, with a median PFS of 57.5 months vs. 32.7 months in the placebo arm. As noted, there was no difference in overall survival in this study.
Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring more frequently with lenalidomide were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, pneumonia, fatigue, hypokalemia, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. There was no difference in the incidence of second primary malignancies, however.
CLLM1 was sponsored by the German CLL Study Group with support from Celgene. CONTINUUM was supported by Celgene. Dr. Fink disclosed research funding from the company, and travel grants and honoraria from others. Dr. Schuh disclosed honoraria from and consulting with Celgene and other companies.
SAN DIEGO – Lenalidomide, a mainstay of maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma, is now making inroads into maintenance therapy following first- and second-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported in two phase III studies.
Among patients with previously untreated CLL who were at high risk for early disease progression following standard chemotherapy, lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance therapy was associated with an 80% reduction in the relative risk for disease progression compared with placebo, reported Anna Fink, MD, of the University of Cologne, Germany, and her colleagues in the German CLL Study Group.
Similarly, lenalidomide maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo among patients with CLL who had at least partial responses to second-line therapy, reported Anna Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, and her colleagues in the CONTINUUM trial.
“Lenalidomide maintenance therapy significantly improved progression-free survival, from just about 9 months to almost 40 months when given to patients with CLL who responded to second-line therapy,” Dr. Schuh said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
Both studies were unblinded because of the superiority of lenalidomide after prespecified analyses, on the recommendation of the respective data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs).
The PFS advantage with lenalidomide seen in each study did not translate into differences in overall survival in either study, however.
Maintenance after first-line therapy
In the CLLM1 trial, Dr. Fink and her colleagues enrolled physically fit, previously untreated patients with CLL and delivered chemoimmunotherapy at the investigator’s choice: either FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab), FR (fludarabine and rituximab), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or BR (bendamustine and rituximab).
Patients who had at least a partial response after a minimum of four cycles were identified as being at high risk for progression if they had minimal residual disease (MRD) levels of at least 10-2 cells, or MRD levels from 10-4 to less than 10-2 combined with either an unmutated IGHV gene status, del(17p) or TP53 mutation at baseline.
Of 468 screened patients, 89 were deemed to have high risk disease, and these patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to maintenance with lenalidomide given 5 mg orally for the first cycle and escalated to a target dose of 15 mg by the seventh cycle, or to placebo.
Additional dose escalations could be performed based on MRD assessments every 6 months, with the drug continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also were assigned to daily low-dose aspirin or to an anticoagulation agent depending on their individual risk for thromboembolic events.
The study was stopped and unblinded after a planned interim analysis showed that the difference in PFS met the stopping boundary for efficacy.
Ultimately, 56 patients assigned to lenalidomide received study treatment, as did 29 assigned to placebo.
At a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median PFS according to independent review was not reached for lenalidomide, vs. 13.3 months for placebo. Lenalidomide was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.148 (P less than .00001), and a relative risk reduction of 80%.
Lenalidomide was also significantly better for PFS in analysis by MRD at baseline, with a PFS of 19.4 months for placebo vs. not reached among patients with less than 10-2 but more than 10-4 cells (HR, 0.125) and 3.7 vs. 32.3 months, respectively, for patients with MRD greater than 10-2 (HR 0.165).
There were three deaths (two in patients on placebo), and at the last analysis there was no difference in overall survival. In all, 42.9% of patients on lenalidomide discontinued because of adverse events, compared with 72.4% of those on placebo.
Maintenance after second-line therapy
In CONTINUUM, patients with at least a partial response after two prior lines of therapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2 were enrolled and randomized to receive either lenalidomide (160 patients) at a starting dose of 2.5 mg/day for the first 28-day cycle, 5 mg/day from cycle 2, and, if well tolerated, up to 10 mg/day from cycle 7 on, or to placebo (154 patients).
This study, as noted before, was also unblinded at the time of the primary analysis as recommended by the DSMB, after a prespecified number of events had occurred.
At a median follow-up of 31.5 months, the median PFS, a co-primary endpoint with OS, was 33.9 months in the lenalidomide arm, compared with 9.2 months in the placebo arm, translating into a HR for lenalidomide of 0.40 (P less than .001).
The lenalidomide advantage also was seen in a subgroup analysis by age, prior response to chemotherapy, and number of factors for poor prognosis. Of note, among patients older than age 70, the PFS with lenalidomide was 52.5 months, compared with 7.3 months for placebo (HR 0.34, P = .005).
In a second PFS analysis conducted after 71 months of follow-up, lenalidomide remained superior, with a median PFS of 57.5 months vs. 32.7 months in the placebo arm. As noted, there was no difference in overall survival in this study.
Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring more frequently with lenalidomide were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, pneumonia, fatigue, hypokalemia, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. There was no difference in the incidence of second primary malignancies, however.
CLLM1 was sponsored by the German CLL Study Group with support from Celgene. CONTINUUM was supported by Celgene. Dr. Fink disclosed research funding from the company, and travel grants and honoraria from others. Dr. Schuh disclosed honoraria from and consulting with Celgene and other companies.
SAN DIEGO – Lenalidomide, a mainstay of maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma, is now making inroads into maintenance therapy following first- and second-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported in two phase III studies.
Among patients with previously untreated CLL who were at high risk for early disease progression following standard chemotherapy, lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance therapy was associated with an 80% reduction in the relative risk for disease progression compared with placebo, reported Anna Fink, MD, of the University of Cologne, Germany, and her colleagues in the German CLL Study Group.
Similarly, lenalidomide maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo among patients with CLL who had at least partial responses to second-line therapy, reported Anna Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, and her colleagues in the CONTINUUM trial.
“Lenalidomide maintenance therapy significantly improved progression-free survival, from just about 9 months to almost 40 months when given to patients with CLL who responded to second-line therapy,” Dr. Schuh said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
Both studies were unblinded because of the superiority of lenalidomide after prespecified analyses, on the recommendation of the respective data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs).
The PFS advantage with lenalidomide seen in each study did not translate into differences in overall survival in either study, however.
Maintenance after first-line therapy
In the CLLM1 trial, Dr. Fink and her colleagues enrolled physically fit, previously untreated patients with CLL and delivered chemoimmunotherapy at the investigator’s choice: either FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab), FR (fludarabine and rituximab), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or BR (bendamustine and rituximab).
Patients who had at least a partial response after a minimum of four cycles were identified as being at high risk for progression if they had minimal residual disease (MRD) levels of at least 10-2 cells, or MRD levels from 10-4 to less than 10-2 combined with either an unmutated IGHV gene status, del(17p) or TP53 mutation at baseline.
Of 468 screened patients, 89 were deemed to have high risk disease, and these patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to maintenance with lenalidomide given 5 mg orally for the first cycle and escalated to a target dose of 15 mg by the seventh cycle, or to placebo.
Additional dose escalations could be performed based on MRD assessments every 6 months, with the drug continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also were assigned to daily low-dose aspirin or to an anticoagulation agent depending on their individual risk for thromboembolic events.
The study was stopped and unblinded after a planned interim analysis showed that the difference in PFS met the stopping boundary for efficacy.
Ultimately, 56 patients assigned to lenalidomide received study treatment, as did 29 assigned to placebo.
At a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median PFS according to independent review was not reached for lenalidomide, vs. 13.3 months for placebo. Lenalidomide was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.148 (P less than .00001), and a relative risk reduction of 80%.
Lenalidomide was also significantly better for PFS in analysis by MRD at baseline, with a PFS of 19.4 months for placebo vs. not reached among patients with less than 10-2 but more than 10-4 cells (HR, 0.125) and 3.7 vs. 32.3 months, respectively, for patients with MRD greater than 10-2 (HR 0.165).
There were three deaths (two in patients on placebo), and at the last analysis there was no difference in overall survival. In all, 42.9% of patients on lenalidomide discontinued because of adverse events, compared with 72.4% of those on placebo.
Maintenance after second-line therapy
In CONTINUUM, patients with at least a partial response after two prior lines of therapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2 were enrolled and randomized to receive either lenalidomide (160 patients) at a starting dose of 2.5 mg/day for the first 28-day cycle, 5 mg/day from cycle 2, and, if well tolerated, up to 10 mg/day from cycle 7 on, or to placebo (154 patients).
This study, as noted before, was also unblinded at the time of the primary analysis as recommended by the DSMB, after a prespecified number of events had occurred.
At a median follow-up of 31.5 months, the median PFS, a co-primary endpoint with OS, was 33.9 months in the lenalidomide arm, compared with 9.2 months in the placebo arm, translating into a HR for lenalidomide of 0.40 (P less than .001).
The lenalidomide advantage also was seen in a subgroup analysis by age, prior response to chemotherapy, and number of factors for poor prognosis. Of note, among patients older than age 70, the PFS with lenalidomide was 52.5 months, compared with 7.3 months for placebo (HR 0.34, P = .005).
In a second PFS analysis conducted after 71 months of follow-up, lenalidomide remained superior, with a median PFS of 57.5 months vs. 32.7 months in the placebo arm. As noted, there was no difference in overall survival in this study.
Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring more frequently with lenalidomide were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, pneumonia, fatigue, hypokalemia, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. There was no difference in the incidence of second primary malignancies, however.
CLLM1 was sponsored by the German CLL Study Group with support from Celgene. CONTINUUM was supported by Celgene. Dr. Fink disclosed research funding from the company, and travel grants and honoraria from others. Dr. Schuh disclosed honoraria from and consulting with Celgene and other companies.
AT ASH 2016
Key clinical point: Lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance improves progression free survival following first- and second-line therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Major finding: Median PFS vs. placebo was not reached vs. 13.3 months in CLLM1, and 33.9 vs. 9.2 months in CONTINUUM.
Data source: Phase III randomized studies of lenalidomide maintenance following first-line therapy (CLLM1) and second-line therapy (CONTINUUM).
Disclosures: CLLM1 was sponsored by the German CLL Study Group with support from Celgene. CONTINUUM was supported by Celgene. Dr. Fink disclosed research funding from Celgene, and travel grants and honoraria from other drug companies. Dr. Schuh disclosed honoraria from and consulting with Celgene and other companies.
VIDEO: AIs associated with endothelial dysfunction, a predictor of CVD
SAN ANTONIO – Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) appear to be associated with declines in vascular endothelial function, which in turn have been associated with the development of cardiovascular disease, suggests a small study presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
In this video interview, Anne Blaes, MD, from the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, talks about the study, which compared endothelial function between postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancers treated with AIs and healthy postmenopausal controls.
Those treated with AIs, independent of the duration of therapy, had significantly worse endothelial function than healthy postmenopausal controls, as measured by the EndoPAT ratio.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN ANTONIO – Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) appear to be associated with declines in vascular endothelial function, which in turn have been associated with the development of cardiovascular disease, suggests a small study presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
In this video interview, Anne Blaes, MD, from the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, talks about the study, which compared endothelial function between postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancers treated with AIs and healthy postmenopausal controls.
Those treated with AIs, independent of the duration of therapy, had significantly worse endothelial function than healthy postmenopausal controls, as measured by the EndoPAT ratio.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN ANTONIO – Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) appear to be associated with declines in vascular endothelial function, which in turn have been associated with the development of cardiovascular disease, suggests a small study presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
In this video interview, Anne Blaes, MD, from the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, talks about the study, which compared endothelial function between postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancers treated with AIs and healthy postmenopausal controls.
Those treated with AIs, independent of the duration of therapy, had significantly worse endothelial function than healthy postmenopausal controls, as measured by the EndoPAT ratio.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT SABCS 2016
It’s elementary: Watson aids in breast cancer decisions
SAN ANTONIO – When oncologists at Manipal Hospitals in Bangalore, India, need help with a breast cancer conundrum, they can make the electronic equivalent of the famous cry for help “Watson, come here, I want you!”
In this case, Watson is not the real-life sidekick of Alexander Graham Bell or the fictional companion of Sherlock Holmes, but Watson for Oncology (WFO), an IBM-created artificial intelligence platform being developed in the United States and used in clinical practice in India to help guide clinical decision making but not to replace clinicians’ judgment, explained S.P. Somashekhar, MBBS, MS, MCH, FRCS, chairman of the Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Center.
This is no game
WFO is the clinical cousin of the artificial intelligence platform, also named Watson, that beat all-time champion Ken Jennings on the television game show “Jeopardy!” The system was named after Thomas J. Watson, IBM’s first chief executive officer.
The version of Watson used in India was developed by physicians and investigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York and by IBM. Watson for Oncology is fed national treatment guidelines, more than 1,000 training cases, MSKCC internal guidelines, and medical literature curated by MSKCC; it then chews over the data and spits out evidence-based recommendations.
At Manipal Hospitals, the electronic medical record contains an “Ask Watson” button that allows clinicians to interrogate the artificial entity’s vast stores of medical data to offer recommendations that clinicians can then use, modify, or reject at their discretion.
The system analyzes more than 100 patient attributes and then offers options with a green label for “recommended,” amber label “for consideration,” or a red label for “not recommended.”
Concordance study
At SABCS, Dr. Somashekhar presented results of a study evaluating the concordance of treatment recommendations between WFO and the members of the Manipal Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB).
They looked at data on 638 patients treated in their hospital system over the three prior years, assessing the MTBs initial, best joint decision at the time of the original treatment decision (T1), and compared it with WFO’s recommendation made in 2016 (T2) and with a blinded MTB re-review of nonconcordant cases, also made in 2016.
Evaluating concordance by stage, they found that, for 514 cases of nonmetastatic disease, there was 79% concordance between the original MTB decisions and WFO’s recommendations for therapies in the combined “for consideration” and “recommended” categories.
For 124 cases of metastatic disease, however, Watson and its human counterparts were more frequently at odds, with only a 46% concordance.
In a subset analysis by receptor status, the investigators found that Watson was best – that is, most highly concordant – in triple-negative disease, with a 67.9% concordance in regard to MTB choices. In contrast, for patients with metastatic disease negative for the human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2), the concordance rate was a low 35%.
Dr. Somashekhar commented that part of the explanation for the discordant concordance rates by tumor subtype can be attributed to the fact that patients with triple-negative breast cancers have fewer treatment options than patients with HER2 negative–only tumors, who have a much broader array of possibilities.
One area where WFO has its two-legged colleagues beaten hands down, however, is in the time it takes to capture and analyze data: humans took a mean of 20 minutes, Watson a median of 40 seconds.
The investigators acknowledged that WFO represents a further step toward personalized medicine, but emphasized that software will never replace the doctor-patient relationship or override the treating physician’s decisions.
‘This one would actually help’
At the briefing, moderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, commented, “I guess this not going to put us out of business as physicians – at least I hope not.”
Asked whether WFO could be a useful clinical tool or just another nuisance task added to an already overcrowded clinic schedule, Dr. Osborne responded, “I think this one would actually help.”
This study was investigative and received no external funding. Dr. Somashekhar, Dr. Osborne, and Dr. Blaes reported no conflicts of interest.
SAN ANTONIO – When oncologists at Manipal Hospitals in Bangalore, India, need help with a breast cancer conundrum, they can make the electronic equivalent of the famous cry for help “Watson, come here, I want you!”
In this case, Watson is not the real-life sidekick of Alexander Graham Bell or the fictional companion of Sherlock Holmes, but Watson for Oncology (WFO), an IBM-created artificial intelligence platform being developed in the United States and used in clinical practice in India to help guide clinical decision making but not to replace clinicians’ judgment, explained S.P. Somashekhar, MBBS, MS, MCH, FRCS, chairman of the Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Center.
This is no game
WFO is the clinical cousin of the artificial intelligence platform, also named Watson, that beat all-time champion Ken Jennings on the television game show “Jeopardy!” The system was named after Thomas J. Watson, IBM’s first chief executive officer.
The version of Watson used in India was developed by physicians and investigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York and by IBM. Watson for Oncology is fed national treatment guidelines, more than 1,000 training cases, MSKCC internal guidelines, and medical literature curated by MSKCC; it then chews over the data and spits out evidence-based recommendations.
At Manipal Hospitals, the electronic medical record contains an “Ask Watson” button that allows clinicians to interrogate the artificial entity’s vast stores of medical data to offer recommendations that clinicians can then use, modify, or reject at their discretion.
The system analyzes more than 100 patient attributes and then offers options with a green label for “recommended,” amber label “for consideration,” or a red label for “not recommended.”
Concordance study
At SABCS, Dr. Somashekhar presented results of a study evaluating the concordance of treatment recommendations between WFO and the members of the Manipal Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB).
They looked at data on 638 patients treated in their hospital system over the three prior years, assessing the MTBs initial, best joint decision at the time of the original treatment decision (T1), and compared it with WFO’s recommendation made in 2016 (T2) and with a blinded MTB re-review of nonconcordant cases, also made in 2016.
Evaluating concordance by stage, they found that, for 514 cases of nonmetastatic disease, there was 79% concordance between the original MTB decisions and WFO’s recommendations for therapies in the combined “for consideration” and “recommended” categories.
For 124 cases of metastatic disease, however, Watson and its human counterparts were more frequently at odds, with only a 46% concordance.
In a subset analysis by receptor status, the investigators found that Watson was best – that is, most highly concordant – in triple-negative disease, with a 67.9% concordance in regard to MTB choices. In contrast, for patients with metastatic disease negative for the human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2), the concordance rate was a low 35%.
Dr. Somashekhar commented that part of the explanation for the discordant concordance rates by tumor subtype can be attributed to the fact that patients with triple-negative breast cancers have fewer treatment options than patients with HER2 negative–only tumors, who have a much broader array of possibilities.
One area where WFO has its two-legged colleagues beaten hands down, however, is in the time it takes to capture and analyze data: humans took a mean of 20 minutes, Watson a median of 40 seconds.
The investigators acknowledged that WFO represents a further step toward personalized medicine, but emphasized that software will never replace the doctor-patient relationship or override the treating physician’s decisions.
‘This one would actually help’
At the briefing, moderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, commented, “I guess this not going to put us out of business as physicians – at least I hope not.”
Asked whether WFO could be a useful clinical tool or just another nuisance task added to an already overcrowded clinic schedule, Dr. Osborne responded, “I think this one would actually help.”
This study was investigative and received no external funding. Dr. Somashekhar, Dr. Osborne, and Dr. Blaes reported no conflicts of interest.
SAN ANTONIO – When oncologists at Manipal Hospitals in Bangalore, India, need help with a breast cancer conundrum, they can make the electronic equivalent of the famous cry for help “Watson, come here, I want you!”
In this case, Watson is not the real-life sidekick of Alexander Graham Bell or the fictional companion of Sherlock Holmes, but Watson for Oncology (WFO), an IBM-created artificial intelligence platform being developed in the United States and used in clinical practice in India to help guide clinical decision making but not to replace clinicians’ judgment, explained S.P. Somashekhar, MBBS, MS, MCH, FRCS, chairman of the Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Center.
This is no game
WFO is the clinical cousin of the artificial intelligence platform, also named Watson, that beat all-time champion Ken Jennings on the television game show “Jeopardy!” The system was named after Thomas J. Watson, IBM’s first chief executive officer.
The version of Watson used in India was developed by physicians and investigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York and by IBM. Watson for Oncology is fed national treatment guidelines, more than 1,000 training cases, MSKCC internal guidelines, and medical literature curated by MSKCC; it then chews over the data and spits out evidence-based recommendations.
At Manipal Hospitals, the electronic medical record contains an “Ask Watson” button that allows clinicians to interrogate the artificial entity’s vast stores of medical data to offer recommendations that clinicians can then use, modify, or reject at their discretion.
The system analyzes more than 100 patient attributes and then offers options with a green label for “recommended,” amber label “for consideration,” or a red label for “not recommended.”
Concordance study
At SABCS, Dr. Somashekhar presented results of a study evaluating the concordance of treatment recommendations between WFO and the members of the Manipal Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB).
They looked at data on 638 patients treated in their hospital system over the three prior years, assessing the MTBs initial, best joint decision at the time of the original treatment decision (T1), and compared it with WFO’s recommendation made in 2016 (T2) and with a blinded MTB re-review of nonconcordant cases, also made in 2016.
Evaluating concordance by stage, they found that, for 514 cases of nonmetastatic disease, there was 79% concordance between the original MTB decisions and WFO’s recommendations for therapies in the combined “for consideration” and “recommended” categories.
For 124 cases of metastatic disease, however, Watson and its human counterparts were more frequently at odds, with only a 46% concordance.
In a subset analysis by receptor status, the investigators found that Watson was best – that is, most highly concordant – in triple-negative disease, with a 67.9% concordance in regard to MTB choices. In contrast, for patients with metastatic disease negative for the human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2), the concordance rate was a low 35%.
Dr. Somashekhar commented that part of the explanation for the discordant concordance rates by tumor subtype can be attributed to the fact that patients with triple-negative breast cancers have fewer treatment options than patients with HER2 negative–only tumors, who have a much broader array of possibilities.
One area where WFO has its two-legged colleagues beaten hands down, however, is in the time it takes to capture and analyze data: humans took a mean of 20 minutes, Watson a median of 40 seconds.
The investigators acknowledged that WFO represents a further step toward personalized medicine, but emphasized that software will never replace the doctor-patient relationship or override the treating physician’s decisions.
‘This one would actually help’
At the briefing, moderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, commented, “I guess this not going to put us out of business as physicians – at least I hope not.”
Asked whether WFO could be a useful clinical tool or just another nuisance task added to an already overcrowded clinic schedule, Dr. Osborne responded, “I think this one would actually help.”
This study was investigative and received no external funding. Dr. Somashekhar, Dr. Osborne, and Dr. Blaes reported no conflicts of interest.
AT SABCS 2016
Key clinical point: There was good, if imperfect, concordance in breast cancer treatment decisions between the software platform Watson for Oncology and human tumor board members.
Major finding: Concordance on treatment decisions for nonmetastatic breast cancers was 79%; concordance for metastatic cancers was 46%.
Data source: Single-institution study comparing treatment-decision concordance rates between a computerized decision tool and human reviewers.
Disclosures: This study was investigative and received no external funding. Dr. Somashekhar, Dr. Osborne, and Dr. Blaes reported no conflicts of interest.
VIDEO: Watson for Oncology offers electronic curbside consults in breast cancer
SAN ANTONIO – Watson for Oncology or WFO, is the clinical cousin of the IBM-created cognitive computing system best known as the machine that defeated all-time champions on the TV quiz show “Jeopardy!”
WFO, however, has the much more important function of providing oncologists with evidence-based support for clinical decisions. Data being presented here at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that in Bangalore, India, where WFO is used in a large hospital system, there is good concordance between tumor board recommendations and WFO’s recommendations about the treatment of breast cancer, although much more work needs to be done. The investigators emphasize that WFO is a highly useful tool that can augment but will not replace clinical judgment, and can never replace the physician-patient relationship.
In this video interview, Andrew Norden, MD, deputy chief health officer for the IBM Watson project, based in Cambridge, Mass., describes how Watson for Oncology works, and how different versions of the Watson platform are being used in medicine throughout the world.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN ANTONIO – Watson for Oncology or WFO, is the clinical cousin of the IBM-created cognitive computing system best known as the machine that defeated all-time champions on the TV quiz show “Jeopardy!”
WFO, however, has the much more important function of providing oncologists with evidence-based support for clinical decisions. Data being presented here at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that in Bangalore, India, where WFO is used in a large hospital system, there is good concordance between tumor board recommendations and WFO’s recommendations about the treatment of breast cancer, although much more work needs to be done. The investigators emphasize that WFO is a highly useful tool that can augment but will not replace clinical judgment, and can never replace the physician-patient relationship.
In this video interview, Andrew Norden, MD, deputy chief health officer for the IBM Watson project, based in Cambridge, Mass., describes how Watson for Oncology works, and how different versions of the Watson platform are being used in medicine throughout the world.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN ANTONIO – Watson for Oncology or WFO, is the clinical cousin of the IBM-created cognitive computing system best known as the machine that defeated all-time champions on the TV quiz show “Jeopardy!”
WFO, however, has the much more important function of providing oncologists with evidence-based support for clinical decisions. Data being presented here at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that in Bangalore, India, where WFO is used in a large hospital system, there is good concordance between tumor board recommendations and WFO’s recommendations about the treatment of breast cancer, although much more work needs to be done. The investigators emphasize that WFO is a highly useful tool that can augment but will not replace clinical judgment, and can never replace the physician-patient relationship.
In this video interview, Andrew Norden, MD, deputy chief health officer for the IBM Watson project, based in Cambridge, Mass., describes how Watson for Oncology works, and how different versions of the Watson platform are being used in medicine throughout the world.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT SABCS 2016
Aromatase inhibitor effect on endothelial function may lead to CVD
SAN ANTONIO – Aromatase inhibitors, a mainstay of therapy in postmenopausal women with operable hormone receptor–positive breast cancers, are associated with reductions in endothelial function that could contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease, independent of the duration of therapy, investigators have found.
In a cross-sectional study examining endothelial function among postmenopausal women with locally advanced breast cancer on an aromatase inhibitor (AI), there were trends toward reduction in large and small artery elasticity and a significant decrement in vascular tone, compared with the vessels of healthy controls, reported Anne Blaes, MD, from the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
“Other studies have suggested that the cardiac risk from aromatase inhibitors is increased further in those with a previous diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. In this study we did not include this patient population, but I really think further work needs to be done in this area,” she said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
Her group’s findings suggest that prospective breast cancer trials need biomarkers to predict cardiovascular risk for patients who are on chronic AI therapy, she said.
CV incidence modest, deaths lows
The incidence rates of cardiovascular disease in clinical trials of adjuvant AI therapy have ranged from 3% to 17%, although the incidence of death from cardiovascular disease was relatively low in these trials, on the order of 1%-2%. Data on cardiovascular risk factors, however, were inconsistently collected across the various studies, Dr. Blaes noted.
“More recently, a lot of discussion has gone on about both the use of prolonged endocrine therapy using aromatase inhibitors – whether to consider 5 or 10 years – and in addition, as our population is aging, competing risks for mortality, whether that’s breast cancer or cardiovascular risk,” she said.
The investigators examined endothelial function in 36 postmenopausal women with locally advanced, operable breast cancer treated with curative intent with adjuvant AI therapy, and compared results with those of 25 healthy postmenopausal volunteers, five of whom were excluded from the final analysis due to prior use of exogenous estrogen.
About half of the patients had received chemotherapy, and two-thirds had received radiation therapy. The AIs used for most patients were anastrozole (Arimidex) and letrozole (Femara). Seven of the 36 cases had previously received tamoxifen.
The authors measured endothelial function using the EndoPAT (Itamar Medical) system that measures peripheral arterial tone (PAT) to identify reactive hyperemia. Endothelial dysfunction measured this way has been associated with an increased risk of cardiac adverse events independent of the Framingham Risk Score, Dr. Blaes said.
The participants underwent biomarker analysis and pulse wave analysis using a cardiovascular profiling system, and pulse contour analysis using the Endo-PAT2000 system. The investigators then compared biomarkers and functional test markers between cases and controls using T-tests and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests.
Biomarkers included inflammatory markers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, interleukin 6), markers of hemostasis (fibrinogen, d-dimer, plasminogen-activator inhibitor-1, tissue-type plasminogen activator), and endothelial function markers (von Willebrand factor, circulating endothelial cells, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, and others).
They measured large-artery elasticity (LAE), small-artery elasticity (SAE), and the EndoPAT ratio, or reactive hyperemia index (RHI), the post-to-pre occlusion PAT signal ratio in the occluded side, normalized to the control side and further corrected for baseline vascular tone. An RHI score above 1.67 is considered normal, and a score of 1.67 or below is considered abnormal.
They found that both LAE and SAE trended toward significantly worse vascular tone in cases, compared with controls, but the differences were not statistically significant. The EndoPAT ratio, however, was significantly worse among cases, at 0.8, compared with 2.6 for controls, a difference that remained significant after controlling for systolic blood pressure (P less than .0001).
Hemostatic and endothelial biomarkers were significantly elevated in cases, compared with controls, but there were no significant differences in inflammatory markers.
When the investigators looked at the association between vascular function and cancer treatment characteristics, they found no differences in the use of chemotherapy, radiation, or left vs. right breast treated.
The use of anastrozole was associated with a significant reduction in LAE, compared with either letrozole or exemestane (P = .03). There was no association between duration of AI therapy and EndoPAT ratio.
Estradiol levels implicated
Not surprisingly, women on endocrine therapy in the study had significantly lower levels of estradiol than controls. Estradiol appears to be important for regulating healthy endothelial function, commented Patricia A. Ganz, MD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was the invited discussant.
“I think these are very provocative, hypothesis-generating findings, and I think they really fit what we expect the physiology should be in terms of endothelial function, even within this postmenopausal group of women where we’re looking at two discrete groups in terms of the estradiol level,” she said.
The study was funded by Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health and a Masonic Scholar Award. Dr. Blaes and Dr. Ganz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SAN ANTONIO – Aromatase inhibitors, a mainstay of therapy in postmenopausal women with operable hormone receptor–positive breast cancers, are associated with reductions in endothelial function that could contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease, independent of the duration of therapy, investigators have found.
In a cross-sectional study examining endothelial function among postmenopausal women with locally advanced breast cancer on an aromatase inhibitor (AI), there were trends toward reduction in large and small artery elasticity and a significant decrement in vascular tone, compared with the vessels of healthy controls, reported Anne Blaes, MD, from the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
“Other studies have suggested that the cardiac risk from aromatase inhibitors is increased further in those with a previous diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. In this study we did not include this patient population, but I really think further work needs to be done in this area,” she said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
Her group’s findings suggest that prospective breast cancer trials need biomarkers to predict cardiovascular risk for patients who are on chronic AI therapy, she said.
CV incidence modest, deaths lows
The incidence rates of cardiovascular disease in clinical trials of adjuvant AI therapy have ranged from 3% to 17%, although the incidence of death from cardiovascular disease was relatively low in these trials, on the order of 1%-2%. Data on cardiovascular risk factors, however, were inconsistently collected across the various studies, Dr. Blaes noted.
“More recently, a lot of discussion has gone on about both the use of prolonged endocrine therapy using aromatase inhibitors – whether to consider 5 or 10 years – and in addition, as our population is aging, competing risks for mortality, whether that’s breast cancer or cardiovascular risk,” she said.
The investigators examined endothelial function in 36 postmenopausal women with locally advanced, operable breast cancer treated with curative intent with adjuvant AI therapy, and compared results with those of 25 healthy postmenopausal volunteers, five of whom were excluded from the final analysis due to prior use of exogenous estrogen.
About half of the patients had received chemotherapy, and two-thirds had received radiation therapy. The AIs used for most patients were anastrozole (Arimidex) and letrozole (Femara). Seven of the 36 cases had previously received tamoxifen.
The authors measured endothelial function using the EndoPAT (Itamar Medical) system that measures peripheral arterial tone (PAT) to identify reactive hyperemia. Endothelial dysfunction measured this way has been associated with an increased risk of cardiac adverse events independent of the Framingham Risk Score, Dr. Blaes said.
The participants underwent biomarker analysis and pulse wave analysis using a cardiovascular profiling system, and pulse contour analysis using the Endo-PAT2000 system. The investigators then compared biomarkers and functional test markers between cases and controls using T-tests and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests.
Biomarkers included inflammatory markers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, interleukin 6), markers of hemostasis (fibrinogen, d-dimer, plasminogen-activator inhibitor-1, tissue-type plasminogen activator), and endothelial function markers (von Willebrand factor, circulating endothelial cells, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, and others).
They measured large-artery elasticity (LAE), small-artery elasticity (SAE), and the EndoPAT ratio, or reactive hyperemia index (RHI), the post-to-pre occlusion PAT signal ratio in the occluded side, normalized to the control side and further corrected for baseline vascular tone. An RHI score above 1.67 is considered normal, and a score of 1.67 or below is considered abnormal.
They found that both LAE and SAE trended toward significantly worse vascular tone in cases, compared with controls, but the differences were not statistically significant. The EndoPAT ratio, however, was significantly worse among cases, at 0.8, compared with 2.6 for controls, a difference that remained significant after controlling for systolic blood pressure (P less than .0001).
Hemostatic and endothelial biomarkers were significantly elevated in cases, compared with controls, but there were no significant differences in inflammatory markers.
When the investigators looked at the association between vascular function and cancer treatment characteristics, they found no differences in the use of chemotherapy, radiation, or left vs. right breast treated.
The use of anastrozole was associated with a significant reduction in LAE, compared with either letrozole or exemestane (P = .03). There was no association between duration of AI therapy and EndoPAT ratio.
Estradiol levels implicated
Not surprisingly, women on endocrine therapy in the study had significantly lower levels of estradiol than controls. Estradiol appears to be important for regulating healthy endothelial function, commented Patricia A. Ganz, MD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was the invited discussant.
“I think these are very provocative, hypothesis-generating findings, and I think they really fit what we expect the physiology should be in terms of endothelial function, even within this postmenopausal group of women where we’re looking at two discrete groups in terms of the estradiol level,” she said.
The study was funded by Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health and a Masonic Scholar Award. Dr. Blaes and Dr. Ganz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SAN ANTONIO – Aromatase inhibitors, a mainstay of therapy in postmenopausal women with operable hormone receptor–positive breast cancers, are associated with reductions in endothelial function that could contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease, independent of the duration of therapy, investigators have found.
In a cross-sectional study examining endothelial function among postmenopausal women with locally advanced breast cancer on an aromatase inhibitor (AI), there were trends toward reduction in large and small artery elasticity and a significant decrement in vascular tone, compared with the vessels of healthy controls, reported Anne Blaes, MD, from the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
“Other studies have suggested that the cardiac risk from aromatase inhibitors is increased further in those with a previous diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. In this study we did not include this patient population, but I really think further work needs to be done in this area,” she said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
Her group’s findings suggest that prospective breast cancer trials need biomarkers to predict cardiovascular risk for patients who are on chronic AI therapy, she said.
CV incidence modest, deaths lows
The incidence rates of cardiovascular disease in clinical trials of adjuvant AI therapy have ranged from 3% to 17%, although the incidence of death from cardiovascular disease was relatively low in these trials, on the order of 1%-2%. Data on cardiovascular risk factors, however, were inconsistently collected across the various studies, Dr. Blaes noted.
“More recently, a lot of discussion has gone on about both the use of prolonged endocrine therapy using aromatase inhibitors – whether to consider 5 or 10 years – and in addition, as our population is aging, competing risks for mortality, whether that’s breast cancer or cardiovascular risk,” she said.
The investigators examined endothelial function in 36 postmenopausal women with locally advanced, operable breast cancer treated with curative intent with adjuvant AI therapy, and compared results with those of 25 healthy postmenopausal volunteers, five of whom were excluded from the final analysis due to prior use of exogenous estrogen.
About half of the patients had received chemotherapy, and two-thirds had received radiation therapy. The AIs used for most patients were anastrozole (Arimidex) and letrozole (Femara). Seven of the 36 cases had previously received tamoxifen.
The authors measured endothelial function using the EndoPAT (Itamar Medical) system that measures peripheral arterial tone (PAT) to identify reactive hyperemia. Endothelial dysfunction measured this way has been associated with an increased risk of cardiac adverse events independent of the Framingham Risk Score, Dr. Blaes said.
The participants underwent biomarker analysis and pulse wave analysis using a cardiovascular profiling system, and pulse contour analysis using the Endo-PAT2000 system. The investigators then compared biomarkers and functional test markers between cases and controls using T-tests and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests.
Biomarkers included inflammatory markers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, interleukin 6), markers of hemostasis (fibrinogen, d-dimer, plasminogen-activator inhibitor-1, tissue-type plasminogen activator), and endothelial function markers (von Willebrand factor, circulating endothelial cells, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, and others).
They measured large-artery elasticity (LAE), small-artery elasticity (SAE), and the EndoPAT ratio, or reactive hyperemia index (RHI), the post-to-pre occlusion PAT signal ratio in the occluded side, normalized to the control side and further corrected for baseline vascular tone. An RHI score above 1.67 is considered normal, and a score of 1.67 or below is considered abnormal.
They found that both LAE and SAE trended toward significantly worse vascular tone in cases, compared with controls, but the differences were not statistically significant. The EndoPAT ratio, however, was significantly worse among cases, at 0.8, compared with 2.6 for controls, a difference that remained significant after controlling for systolic blood pressure (P less than .0001).
Hemostatic and endothelial biomarkers were significantly elevated in cases, compared with controls, but there were no significant differences in inflammatory markers.
When the investigators looked at the association between vascular function and cancer treatment characteristics, they found no differences in the use of chemotherapy, radiation, or left vs. right breast treated.
The use of anastrozole was associated with a significant reduction in LAE, compared with either letrozole or exemestane (P = .03). There was no association between duration of AI therapy and EndoPAT ratio.
Estradiol levels implicated
Not surprisingly, women on endocrine therapy in the study had significantly lower levels of estradiol than controls. Estradiol appears to be important for regulating healthy endothelial function, commented Patricia A. Ganz, MD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was the invited discussant.
“I think these are very provocative, hypothesis-generating findings, and I think they really fit what we expect the physiology should be in terms of endothelial function, even within this postmenopausal group of women where we’re looking at two discrete groups in terms of the estradiol level,” she said.
The study was funded by Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health and a Masonic Scholar Award. Dr. Blaes and Dr. Ganz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT SABCS 2016
Key clinical point: Aromatase inhibitors appear to have a decremental effect on vascular endothelial function, which could contribute to cardiovascular disease.
Major finding: Postmenopausal breast cancer survivors had significantly worse endothelial function than healthy postmenopausal controls, as measured by the EndoPAT ratio.
Data source: Case-control study with 36 postmenopausal breast cancer survivors on aromatase inhibitors and 25 healthy controls.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health and a Masonic Scholar Award. Dr. Blaes and Dr. Ganz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
No boost in pCR from neoadjuvant estrogen deprivation
SAN ANTONIO – Although adding concurrent estrogen deprivation to a standard combination chemotherapy regimen for women with breast cancers positive for the estrogen receptors (ER+) and the human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (HER2+) did not add to the already considerable toxicity, it also did not seem to add much benefit, according to an investigator in the NSABP B-52 trial.
Among 311 women with ER+/HER2+ tumors randomized to neoadjuvant therapy with docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab (Herceptin), and pertuzumab (Perjeta) with or without estrogen deprivation therapy, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, reported Mothaffar F. Rimawi, MD, of the breast center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
“I think the most important lesson from B-52 is that when we hit the tumors with everything we’ve got, this is what we have. We need to start thinking about whether we can, essentially, start dialing down these treatments. Can we omit one of the chemotherapy agents, if not both, and see what happens,” Dr. Rimawi said in an interview.
Endocrine/chemo interplay?
The rationale for the trial was based on several previous findings, including the propensity for ER+/HER2+ tumors to be less responsive to dual anti-HER2 therapy with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and pertuzumab (Perjeta).
There is also evidence to suggest that the estrogen receptor may act as a pathway of resistance to anti-HER2 therapy, and evidence from older trials suggested that chemotherapy and endocrine therapy may have antagonistic effects, he said.
The investigators hypothesized that concurrent inhibition of ER and HER2 tumors with neoadjuvant chemotherapy consisting of docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (TCHP) would not be antagonistic, and could overcome resistance to treatment as shown by improvements in pathologic complete response rates.
The investigators enrolled women with HER+ and ER+ and/or progresterone receptor–positive (PR+) invasive breast cancer diagnosed by core needle biopsy, stratified them by premenopausal or postmenopausal status, and then randomized them to receive chemotherapy with docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab every 21 days for six cycles, with or without estrogen deprivation therapy. Postmenopausal women received an aromatase inhibitor, and premenopausal women received an aromatase inhibitor plus ovarian suppression with goserelin and a lutenizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist.
For the primary endpoint, overall rates of pCR in the breast and nodes were 41% among 154 patients treated with TCHP chemotherapy alone, vs. 46% for 157 women treated with TCHP and estrogen deprivation, a difference that was not statistically significant. The results were similar in an analysis stratified by menopausal status: 44% vs. 46%, respectively, in premenopausal women, and 38% vs. 45% in postmenopausal women. Neither comparison was statistically significant.
In addition, no overall or stratified differences were seen in terms of pCR in the breast alone, and no differences were seen in clinical complete response rates, at 68.1% vs. 73.9%, respectively.
Nearly 100% of patients in the TCHP chemotherapy alone arm had diarrhea, ranging from 42% with grade 1, to 34% with grade 2, to 23% with grade 3, to less than 1% with grade 4. The distribution of diarrhea severity was virtually identical among patients treated with TCHP plus estrogen deprivation, all of whom experienced some grade. Other common gastrointestinal side effects in each study arm included nausea, vomiting, and dehydration, occurring in nearly all patients with equal distribution of severity between the two arms.
Hematologic toxicities included anemia, hypokalemia, and febrile neutropenia, again distributed evenly in severity between the trial arms.
Alternative endpoint?
Dr. Rimawi said the pCR endpoint commonly used in clinical trials may not be ideal for studying therapy in this population, because it generally correlates with outcomes among women when tumors are ER negative,“but when they are ER positive, the absence of a pathologic complete response is not necessarily a bad thing.”
He said that residual cancer burden, or RCB, appears to be a better marker for prognosis than pCR in patients with ER+/HER2+ tumors.
“In this population we need a different metric, a metric that is not path CR,” agreed Carlos Arteaga, MD, professor of cancer biology and medicine, and coleader of the breast cancer research program at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.
“We need other metrics that are more objective and more correlated with long-term outcomes. Path CR is not,” said Dr. Arteaga, who moderated a briefing where NSABP B-52 data were discussed prior to their presentation in the general session.
Regarding the lack of statistical significance, Dr. Rimawi said it is possible that the effects of chemotherapy may have blunted the responses that might otherwise have been seen with the addition of estrogen deprivation.
“We believe that if we de-escalate treatment, we could see a higher response to the estrogen receptor inhibitor,” he said.
NSABP B-52 was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Genentech. Dr. Rimawi reported contracted research from Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Arteaga reported no disclosures relevant to the trial.
SAN ANTONIO – Although adding concurrent estrogen deprivation to a standard combination chemotherapy regimen for women with breast cancers positive for the estrogen receptors (ER+) and the human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (HER2+) did not add to the already considerable toxicity, it also did not seem to add much benefit, according to an investigator in the NSABP B-52 trial.
Among 311 women with ER+/HER2+ tumors randomized to neoadjuvant therapy with docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab (Herceptin), and pertuzumab (Perjeta) with or without estrogen deprivation therapy, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, reported Mothaffar F. Rimawi, MD, of the breast center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
“I think the most important lesson from B-52 is that when we hit the tumors with everything we’ve got, this is what we have. We need to start thinking about whether we can, essentially, start dialing down these treatments. Can we omit one of the chemotherapy agents, if not both, and see what happens,” Dr. Rimawi said in an interview.
Endocrine/chemo interplay?
The rationale for the trial was based on several previous findings, including the propensity for ER+/HER2+ tumors to be less responsive to dual anti-HER2 therapy with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and pertuzumab (Perjeta).
There is also evidence to suggest that the estrogen receptor may act as a pathway of resistance to anti-HER2 therapy, and evidence from older trials suggested that chemotherapy and endocrine therapy may have antagonistic effects, he said.
The investigators hypothesized that concurrent inhibition of ER and HER2 tumors with neoadjuvant chemotherapy consisting of docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (TCHP) would not be antagonistic, and could overcome resistance to treatment as shown by improvements in pathologic complete response rates.
The investigators enrolled women with HER+ and ER+ and/or progresterone receptor–positive (PR+) invasive breast cancer diagnosed by core needle biopsy, stratified them by premenopausal or postmenopausal status, and then randomized them to receive chemotherapy with docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab every 21 days for six cycles, with or without estrogen deprivation therapy. Postmenopausal women received an aromatase inhibitor, and premenopausal women received an aromatase inhibitor plus ovarian suppression with goserelin and a lutenizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist.
For the primary endpoint, overall rates of pCR in the breast and nodes were 41% among 154 patients treated with TCHP chemotherapy alone, vs. 46% for 157 women treated with TCHP and estrogen deprivation, a difference that was not statistically significant. The results were similar in an analysis stratified by menopausal status: 44% vs. 46%, respectively, in premenopausal women, and 38% vs. 45% in postmenopausal women. Neither comparison was statistically significant.
In addition, no overall or stratified differences were seen in terms of pCR in the breast alone, and no differences were seen in clinical complete response rates, at 68.1% vs. 73.9%, respectively.
Nearly 100% of patients in the TCHP chemotherapy alone arm had diarrhea, ranging from 42% with grade 1, to 34% with grade 2, to 23% with grade 3, to less than 1% with grade 4. The distribution of diarrhea severity was virtually identical among patients treated with TCHP plus estrogen deprivation, all of whom experienced some grade. Other common gastrointestinal side effects in each study arm included nausea, vomiting, and dehydration, occurring in nearly all patients with equal distribution of severity between the two arms.
Hematologic toxicities included anemia, hypokalemia, and febrile neutropenia, again distributed evenly in severity between the trial arms.
Alternative endpoint?
Dr. Rimawi said the pCR endpoint commonly used in clinical trials may not be ideal for studying therapy in this population, because it generally correlates with outcomes among women when tumors are ER negative,“but when they are ER positive, the absence of a pathologic complete response is not necessarily a bad thing.”
He said that residual cancer burden, or RCB, appears to be a better marker for prognosis than pCR in patients with ER+/HER2+ tumors.
“In this population we need a different metric, a metric that is not path CR,” agreed Carlos Arteaga, MD, professor of cancer biology and medicine, and coleader of the breast cancer research program at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.
“We need other metrics that are more objective and more correlated with long-term outcomes. Path CR is not,” said Dr. Arteaga, who moderated a briefing where NSABP B-52 data were discussed prior to their presentation in the general session.
Regarding the lack of statistical significance, Dr. Rimawi said it is possible that the effects of chemotherapy may have blunted the responses that might otherwise have been seen with the addition of estrogen deprivation.
“We believe that if we de-escalate treatment, we could see a higher response to the estrogen receptor inhibitor,” he said.
NSABP B-52 was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Genentech. Dr. Rimawi reported contracted research from Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Arteaga reported no disclosures relevant to the trial.
SAN ANTONIO – Although adding concurrent estrogen deprivation to a standard combination chemotherapy regimen for women with breast cancers positive for the estrogen receptors (ER+) and the human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (HER2+) did not add to the already considerable toxicity, it also did not seem to add much benefit, according to an investigator in the NSABP B-52 trial.
Among 311 women with ER+/HER2+ tumors randomized to neoadjuvant therapy with docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab (Herceptin), and pertuzumab (Perjeta) with or without estrogen deprivation therapy, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, reported Mothaffar F. Rimawi, MD, of the breast center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
“I think the most important lesson from B-52 is that when we hit the tumors with everything we’ve got, this is what we have. We need to start thinking about whether we can, essentially, start dialing down these treatments. Can we omit one of the chemotherapy agents, if not both, and see what happens,” Dr. Rimawi said in an interview.
Endocrine/chemo interplay?
The rationale for the trial was based on several previous findings, including the propensity for ER+/HER2+ tumors to be less responsive to dual anti-HER2 therapy with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and pertuzumab (Perjeta).
There is also evidence to suggest that the estrogen receptor may act as a pathway of resistance to anti-HER2 therapy, and evidence from older trials suggested that chemotherapy and endocrine therapy may have antagonistic effects, he said.
The investigators hypothesized that concurrent inhibition of ER and HER2 tumors with neoadjuvant chemotherapy consisting of docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (TCHP) would not be antagonistic, and could overcome resistance to treatment as shown by improvements in pathologic complete response rates.
The investigators enrolled women with HER+ and ER+ and/or progresterone receptor–positive (PR+) invasive breast cancer diagnosed by core needle biopsy, stratified them by premenopausal or postmenopausal status, and then randomized them to receive chemotherapy with docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab every 21 days for six cycles, with or without estrogen deprivation therapy. Postmenopausal women received an aromatase inhibitor, and premenopausal women received an aromatase inhibitor plus ovarian suppression with goserelin and a lutenizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist.
For the primary endpoint, overall rates of pCR in the breast and nodes were 41% among 154 patients treated with TCHP chemotherapy alone, vs. 46% for 157 women treated with TCHP and estrogen deprivation, a difference that was not statistically significant. The results were similar in an analysis stratified by menopausal status: 44% vs. 46%, respectively, in premenopausal women, and 38% vs. 45% in postmenopausal women. Neither comparison was statistically significant.
In addition, no overall or stratified differences were seen in terms of pCR in the breast alone, and no differences were seen in clinical complete response rates, at 68.1% vs. 73.9%, respectively.
Nearly 100% of patients in the TCHP chemotherapy alone arm had diarrhea, ranging from 42% with grade 1, to 34% with grade 2, to 23% with grade 3, to less than 1% with grade 4. The distribution of diarrhea severity was virtually identical among patients treated with TCHP plus estrogen deprivation, all of whom experienced some grade. Other common gastrointestinal side effects in each study arm included nausea, vomiting, and dehydration, occurring in nearly all patients with equal distribution of severity between the two arms.
Hematologic toxicities included anemia, hypokalemia, and febrile neutropenia, again distributed evenly in severity between the trial arms.
Alternative endpoint?
Dr. Rimawi said the pCR endpoint commonly used in clinical trials may not be ideal for studying therapy in this population, because it generally correlates with outcomes among women when tumors are ER negative,“but when they are ER positive, the absence of a pathologic complete response is not necessarily a bad thing.”
He said that residual cancer burden, or RCB, appears to be a better marker for prognosis than pCR in patients with ER+/HER2+ tumors.
“In this population we need a different metric, a metric that is not path CR,” agreed Carlos Arteaga, MD, professor of cancer biology and medicine, and coleader of the breast cancer research program at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.
“We need other metrics that are more objective and more correlated with long-term outcomes. Path CR is not,” said Dr. Arteaga, who moderated a briefing where NSABP B-52 data were discussed prior to their presentation in the general session.
Regarding the lack of statistical significance, Dr. Rimawi said it is possible that the effects of chemotherapy may have blunted the responses that might otherwise have been seen with the addition of estrogen deprivation.
“We believe that if we de-escalate treatment, we could see a higher response to the estrogen receptor inhibitor,” he said.
NSABP B-52 was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Genentech. Dr. Rimawi reported contracted research from Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Arteaga reported no disclosures relevant to the trial.
AT SABCS 2016
Key clinical point: Estrogen deprivation added to chemotherapy and dual HER2 inhibition did not improve pathologic complete responses, compared with chemotherapy alone.
Major finding: The pathologic complete response rate for women with ER-positive/HER2-positive tumors was 41%, without estrogen deprivation, vs. 46% with estrogen deprivation (a nonsignficant difference).
Data source: A randomized phase III trial of neoadjuvant therapy in 311 women with ER+/HER2+ breast cancers.
Disclosures: NSABP-B52 was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Genentech. Dr. Rimawi reported contracted research from Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Arteaga reported no disclosures relevant to the trial.
VIDEO: No improvement in pCR with dual ER and HER2 inhibition
SAN ANTONIO – Breast cancers that are positive for the estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (HER2) are less likely than ER-negative/HER2-positive tumors to respond to dual anti-HER2 therapy, suggesting that the estrogen receptor may act as a pathway of resistance to anti-HER2 treatment.
The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-52 trial was designed to test the hypothesis that concurrent inhibition of both ER and HER2 added to chemotherapy with a platinum compound and a taxane will overcome resistance to treatment and improve pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in patients with ER-positive/HER2-positive breast cancer.
In a video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Mothaffar F. Rimawi, MD, discusses the trial results, which failed to show a significant difference in pCR rates between women who received chemotherapy with estrogen deprivation or chemotherapy alone. However, the trial still provided important information about the interplay between hormonal and HER2 receptors, and may inform future clinical trials examining reduction in tumor burden as a prognostic measure, says Dr. Rimawi from the Breast Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN ANTONIO – Breast cancers that are positive for the estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (HER2) are less likely than ER-negative/HER2-positive tumors to respond to dual anti-HER2 therapy, suggesting that the estrogen receptor may act as a pathway of resistance to anti-HER2 treatment.
The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-52 trial was designed to test the hypothesis that concurrent inhibition of both ER and HER2 added to chemotherapy with a platinum compound and a taxane will overcome resistance to treatment and improve pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in patients with ER-positive/HER2-positive breast cancer.
In a video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Mothaffar F. Rimawi, MD, discusses the trial results, which failed to show a significant difference in pCR rates between women who received chemotherapy with estrogen deprivation or chemotherapy alone. However, the trial still provided important information about the interplay between hormonal and HER2 receptors, and may inform future clinical trials examining reduction in tumor burden as a prognostic measure, says Dr. Rimawi from the Breast Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN ANTONIO – Breast cancers that are positive for the estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (HER2) are less likely than ER-negative/HER2-positive tumors to respond to dual anti-HER2 therapy, suggesting that the estrogen receptor may act as a pathway of resistance to anti-HER2 treatment.
The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-52 trial was designed to test the hypothesis that concurrent inhibition of both ER and HER2 added to chemotherapy with a platinum compound and a taxane will overcome resistance to treatment and improve pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in patients with ER-positive/HER2-positive breast cancer.
In a video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Mothaffar F. Rimawi, MD, discusses the trial results, which failed to show a significant difference in pCR rates between women who received chemotherapy with estrogen deprivation or chemotherapy alone. However, the trial still provided important information about the interplay between hormonal and HER2 receptors, and may inform future clinical trials examining reduction in tumor burden as a prognostic measure, says Dr. Rimawi from the Breast Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT SABCS 2016
