Breast Cancer

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Adding the CDK 4/6 blocker palbociclib to standard endocrine and antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-positive breast cancer extended patients’ median progression-free survival more than a year, according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.

This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).

Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.

Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).

Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.

Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.

“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.

On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.

But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.

These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.

 

‘Incredible’ Results

The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”

Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.

Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.

In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.

Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.

Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.

For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.

In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.

The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Adding the CDK 4/6 blocker palbociclib to standard endocrine and antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-positive breast cancer extended patients’ median progression-free survival more than a year, according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.

This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).

Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.

Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).

Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.

Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.

“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.

On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.

But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.

These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.

 

‘Incredible’ Results

The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”

Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.

Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.

In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.

Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.

Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.

For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.

In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.

The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Adding the CDK 4/6 blocker palbociclib to standard endocrine and antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-positive breast cancer extended patients’ median progression-free survival more than a year, according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.

This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).

Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.

Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).

Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.

Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.

“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.

On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.

But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.

These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.

 

‘Incredible’ Results

The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”

Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.

Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.

In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.

Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.

Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.

For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.

In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.

The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.

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

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently, a 40-year-old woman took to Facebook to announce that she had died.

Rachel Davies, of Wales, wrote: “If you’re reading this, then it means I’m no longer here. What a life I’ve had, and surprisingly, since cancer entered my life. When I look through my photos, I’ve done and seen so much since cancer, and probably some of my best memories are from this period. In so many ways, I have to thank it for learning how to live fully. What I wish is that everyone can experience the same but without needing cancer. Get out there, experience life fully, and wear that dress!!! I’m so sad to leave my family and friends, I wish I never had to go. I’m so grateful to have had Charlie young so that I’ve watched him grow into the man he is today. I’m unbelievably proud of him. I am thankful I had the opportunity to have Kacey and Jacob in my life. Lastly, I was blessed to meet the love of my life, my husband, and my best friend. I have no regrets, I have had a wonderful life. So to all of you, don’t be sad I’ve gone. Live your life and live it well. Love, Rachel x.”

 

I didn’t know Ms. Davies, but am likely among many who wish I had. In a terrible situation she kept trying.

She had HER2 metastatic breast cancer, which can respond to the drug Enhertu (trastuzumab). Unfortunately, she never had the chance, because it wasn’t available to her in Wales. In the United Kingdom it’s available only in Scotland.

I’m not saying it was a cure. Statistically, it likely would have bought her another 6 months of family time. But that’s still another half year.

I’m not blaming the Welsh NHS, though they made the decision not to cover it because of cost. The jobs of such committees is a thankless one, trying to decide where the limited money goes — vaccines for many children that are proven to lessen morbidity and mortality over the course of a lifetime, or to add 6 months to the lives of comparatively fewer women with HER2 metastatic breast cancer.

I’m not blaming the company that makes Enhertu, though it was the cost that kept her from getting it. Bringing a drug to market, with all the labs and clinical research behind it, ain’t cheap. If the company can’t keep the lights on they’re not going to able to develop future pharmaceuticals to help others, though I do wonder if a better price could have been negotiated. (I’m not trying to justify the salaries of insurance CEOs — don’t even get me started on those.)

Money is always limited, and human suffering is infinite. Every health care organization, public or private, has to face that simple fact. There is no right place to draw the line, so we use the greatest good for the greatest many as our best guess.

In her last post, though, Ms. Davies didn’t dwell on any of this. She reflected on her joys and blessings, and encouraged others to live life fully. Things we should all focus on.

In a world that often seems to have gone mad, it’s good to keep in mind that there is more good than bad out there. 

Thank you, Ms. Davies, for the reminder.

Allan M. Block, MD, has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Recently, a 40-year-old woman took to Facebook to announce that she had died.

Rachel Davies, of Wales, wrote: “If you’re reading this, then it means I’m no longer here. What a life I’ve had, and surprisingly, since cancer entered my life. When I look through my photos, I’ve done and seen so much since cancer, and probably some of my best memories are from this period. In so many ways, I have to thank it for learning how to live fully. What I wish is that everyone can experience the same but without needing cancer. Get out there, experience life fully, and wear that dress!!! I’m so sad to leave my family and friends, I wish I never had to go. I’m so grateful to have had Charlie young so that I’ve watched him grow into the man he is today. I’m unbelievably proud of him. I am thankful I had the opportunity to have Kacey and Jacob in my life. Lastly, I was blessed to meet the love of my life, my husband, and my best friend. I have no regrets, I have had a wonderful life. So to all of you, don’t be sad I’ve gone. Live your life and live it well. Love, Rachel x.”

 

I didn’t know Ms. Davies, but am likely among many who wish I had. In a terrible situation she kept trying.

She had HER2 metastatic breast cancer, which can respond to the drug Enhertu (trastuzumab). Unfortunately, she never had the chance, because it wasn’t available to her in Wales. In the United Kingdom it’s available only in Scotland.

I’m not saying it was a cure. Statistically, it likely would have bought her another 6 months of family time. But that’s still another half year.

I’m not blaming the Welsh NHS, though they made the decision not to cover it because of cost. The jobs of such committees is a thankless one, trying to decide where the limited money goes — vaccines for many children that are proven to lessen morbidity and mortality over the course of a lifetime, or to add 6 months to the lives of comparatively fewer women with HER2 metastatic breast cancer.

I’m not blaming the company that makes Enhertu, though it was the cost that kept her from getting it. Bringing a drug to market, with all the labs and clinical research behind it, ain’t cheap. If the company can’t keep the lights on they’re not going to able to develop future pharmaceuticals to help others, though I do wonder if a better price could have been negotiated. (I’m not trying to justify the salaries of insurance CEOs — don’t even get me started on those.)

Money is always limited, and human suffering is infinite. Every health care organization, public or private, has to face that simple fact. There is no right place to draw the line, so we use the greatest good for the greatest many as our best guess.

In her last post, though, Ms. Davies didn’t dwell on any of this. She reflected on her joys and blessings, and encouraged others to live life fully. Things we should all focus on.

In a world that often seems to have gone mad, it’s good to keep in mind that there is more good than bad out there. 

Thank you, Ms. Davies, for the reminder.

Allan M. Block, MD, has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Recently, a 40-year-old woman took to Facebook to announce that she had died.

Rachel Davies, of Wales, wrote: “If you’re reading this, then it means I’m no longer here. What a life I’ve had, and surprisingly, since cancer entered my life. When I look through my photos, I’ve done and seen so much since cancer, and probably some of my best memories are from this period. In so many ways, I have to thank it for learning how to live fully. What I wish is that everyone can experience the same but without needing cancer. Get out there, experience life fully, and wear that dress!!! I’m so sad to leave my family and friends, I wish I never had to go. I’m so grateful to have had Charlie young so that I’ve watched him grow into the man he is today. I’m unbelievably proud of him. I am thankful I had the opportunity to have Kacey and Jacob in my life. Lastly, I was blessed to meet the love of my life, my husband, and my best friend. I have no regrets, I have had a wonderful life. So to all of you, don’t be sad I’ve gone. Live your life and live it well. Love, Rachel x.”

 

I didn’t know Ms. Davies, but am likely among many who wish I had. In a terrible situation she kept trying.

She had HER2 metastatic breast cancer, which can respond to the drug Enhertu (trastuzumab). Unfortunately, she never had the chance, because it wasn’t available to her in Wales. In the United Kingdom it’s available only in Scotland.

I’m not saying it was a cure. Statistically, it likely would have bought her another 6 months of family time. But that’s still another half year.

I’m not blaming the Welsh NHS, though they made the decision not to cover it because of cost. The jobs of such committees is a thankless one, trying to decide where the limited money goes — vaccines for many children that are proven to lessen morbidity and mortality over the course of a lifetime, or to add 6 months to the lives of comparatively fewer women with HER2 metastatic breast cancer.

I’m not blaming the company that makes Enhertu, though it was the cost that kept her from getting it. Bringing a drug to market, with all the labs and clinical research behind it, ain’t cheap. If the company can’t keep the lights on they’re not going to able to develop future pharmaceuticals to help others, though I do wonder if a better price could have been negotiated. (I’m not trying to justify the salaries of insurance CEOs — don’t even get me started on those.)

Money is always limited, and human suffering is infinite. Every health care organization, public or private, has to face that simple fact. There is no right place to draw the line, so we use the greatest good for the greatest many as our best guess.

In her last post, though, Ms. Davies didn’t dwell on any of this. She reflected on her joys and blessings, and encouraged others to live life fully. Things we should all focus on.

In a world that often seems to have gone mad, it’s good to keep in mind that there is more good than bad out there. 

Thank you, Ms. Davies, for the reminder.

Allan M. Block, MD, has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The question has been lingering for years in medical science circles. Since 2020, when the artificial intelligence (AI) model AlphaFold made it possible to predict protein structures, would the technology open the drug discovery floodgates?

Short answer: No. At least not yet.

The longer answer goes something like this:

A drug target (such as a mutation) is like a lock. The right drug (a protein designed to bind to the mutation, stopping its activity) is the key. But proteins are fidgety and flexible.

“They’re basically molecular springs,” said Gabriel Monteiro da Silva, PhD, a computational chemistry research scientist at Genesis Therapeutics. “Your key can bend and alter the shape of the lock, and if you don’t account for that, your key might fail.”

This is the protein problem in drug development. Another issue making this challenge so vexing is that proteins don’t act in isolation. Their interactions with other proteins, ribonucleic acid, and DNA can affect how they bind to molecules and the shapes they adopt.

Newer versions of AlphaFold, such as AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 (the code for which was recently revealed for academic use), can predict many interactions among proteins and between proteins and other molecules. But these tools still have weak points scientists are trying to overcome or work around.

“Those kinds of dynamics and multiple conformations are still quite challenging for the AI models to predict,” said James Zou, PhD, associate professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California.

“We’re finding more and more that the only way we can make these structures useful for drug discovery is if we incorporate dynamics, if we incorporate more physics into the model,” said Monteiro da Silva.

Monteiro da Silva spent 3 years during his PhD at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, running physics-based simulations in the lab, trying to understand why proteins carrying certain mutations are drug resistant. His results showed how “the changing landscape of shapes that a protein can take” prevented the drug from binding.

It took him 3 years to model just four mutations.

AI can do better — and the struggle is fascinating. By developing models that build on the predictive power of AlphaFold, scientists are uncovering new details about protein activity — insights that can lead to new therapeutics and reveal why existing ones stop working — much faster than they could with traditional methods or AlphaFold alone.

 

New Windows into Protein Dynamics

By predicting protein structural details, AlphaFold models also made it possible to predict pockets where drugs could bind.

A notable step, “but that’s just the starting point,” said Pedro Beltrao, PhD, an associate professor at Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “It’s still very difficult, given a pocket, to actually design the drug or figure out what the pocket binds.”

Going back to the lock-and-key analogy: While he was at Brown, with a team of researchers in the Rubenstein Group, Monteiro da Silva helped create a model to better understand how mutations affect “the shape and dynamics of the lock.” They manipulated the amino acid sequences of proteins, guiding their evolution. This enabled them to use AlphaFold to predict “protein ensembles” and how frequently those ensembles appear. Each ensemble represents the many different shapes a protein can take under given conditions.

“Essentially, it tries to find the most common shapes that a protein will take over an arbitrary amount of time,” Monteiro da Silva said. “If we can predict these ensembles at scale and fast, then we can screen many mutations that cause resistance and develop drugs that will not be affected by that resistance.”

To evaluate their method, the researchers focused on ABL1, a well-studied kinase that causes leukemia. ABL1 can be drugged – unless it carries or develops a mutation that causes drug resistance. Currently there are no drugs that work against proteins carrying those mutations, according to Monteiro da Silva. The researchers used their hybrid AI-meets-physics method to investigate how drugs bind to different ABL1 mutations, screening 100 mutations in just 1 month.

“It’s not going to be perfect for every one of them. But if we have 100 and we get 20 with good accuracy, that’s better than doing four over 3 years,” Monteiro da Silva said.

A forthcoming paper will make their model publicly available in “an easy-to-use graphical interface” that they hope clinicians and medicinal chemists will try out. It can also complement other AI-based tools that dig into protein dynamics, according to Monteiro da Silva.

 

Complementary Tools to Speed Up Discovery 

Another aspect of the protein problem is scale. One protein can interact with hundreds of other proteins, which in turn may interact with hundreds more, all of which comprise the human interactome.

Feixiong Cheng, PhD, helped build PIONEER, a deep learning model that predicts the three-dimensional (3D) structure of interactions between proteins across the interactome.

Most disease mutations disrupt specific interactions between proteins, making their affinity stronger or weaker, explained Cheng. To treat a disease without causing major side effects, scientists need a precise understanding of those interactions.

“From the drug discovery perspective, we cannot just focus on single proteins. We have to understand the protein environment, in particular how the protein interacts with other proteins,” said Cheng, director of Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, Cleveland.

PIONEER helps by blending AlphaFold’s protein structure predictions with next-generation sequencing, a type of genomic research that identifies mutations in the human genome. The model predicts the 3D structure of the places where proteins interact — the binding sites, or interfaces — across the interactome.

“We tell you not only that a binds b, but where on a and where on b the two proteins interact,” said Haiyuan Yu, PhD, director of the Center for Innovative Proteomics, Cornell University, and co-creator of PIONEER.

This can help scientists understand “why a mutation, protein, or even network is a good target for therapeutic discovery,” Cheng said.

The researchers validated PIONEER’s predictions in the lab, testing the impacts of roughly 3000 mutations on 7000 pairs of interacting proteins. Based on their findings, they plan to develop and test treatments for lung and endometrial cancer.

PIONEER can also help scientists home in on how a mutation causes a disease, such as by showing recurrent mutations.

“If you find cancer mutations hitting an interface again and again and again, it means that this is likely to be driving cancer progression,” said Beltrao.

Beltrao’s lab and others have looked for recurrent mutations by using AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 to directly model protein interactions. It’s a much slower approach (Pioneer is more than 5000 faster than AlphaFold Multimer, according to Cheng). But it could allow scientists to model interfaces that are not shown by PIONEER.

“You will need many different things to try to come up with a structural modeling of the interactome, and all these will have limitations,” said Beltrao. “Their method is a very good step forward, and there’ll be other approaches that are complementary, to continue to add details.”

 

And It Wouldn’t be an AI Mission Without ChatGPT

Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are another way that scientists are adding details to protein structure predictions. Zou used GPT-4 to “fine tune” a protein language model, called evolutionary scale modeling (ESM-2), which predicts protein structures directly from a protein sequence.

First, they trained ChatGPT on thousands of papers and studies containing information about the functions, biophysical properties, and disease relevance of different mutations. Next, they used the trained model to “teach” ESM-2, boosting its ability “to predict which mutations are likely to have larger effects or smaller effects,” Zou said. The same could be done for a model like AlphaFold, according to Zou.

“They are quite complementary in that the large language model contains a lot more information about the functions and the biophysics of different mutations and proteins as captured in text,” he said, whereas “you can’t give AlphaFold a piece of paper.”

Exactly how AlphaFold makes its predictions is another mystery. “It will somehow learn protein dynamics phenomenologically,” said Monteiro da Silva. He and others are trying to understand how that happens, in hopes of creating even more accurate predictive models. But for the time being, AI-based methods still need assistance from physics.

“The dream is that we achieve a state where we rely on just the fast methods, and they’re accurate enough,” he said. “But we’re so far from that.”

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

The question has been lingering for years in medical science circles. Since 2020, when the artificial intelligence (AI) model AlphaFold made it possible to predict protein structures, would the technology open the drug discovery floodgates?

Short answer: No. At least not yet.

The longer answer goes something like this:

A drug target (such as a mutation) is like a lock. The right drug (a protein designed to bind to the mutation, stopping its activity) is the key. But proteins are fidgety and flexible.

“They’re basically molecular springs,” said Gabriel Monteiro da Silva, PhD, a computational chemistry research scientist at Genesis Therapeutics. “Your key can bend and alter the shape of the lock, and if you don’t account for that, your key might fail.”

This is the protein problem in drug development. Another issue making this challenge so vexing is that proteins don’t act in isolation. Their interactions with other proteins, ribonucleic acid, and DNA can affect how they bind to molecules and the shapes they adopt.

Newer versions of AlphaFold, such as AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 (the code for which was recently revealed for academic use), can predict many interactions among proteins and between proteins and other molecules. But these tools still have weak points scientists are trying to overcome or work around.

“Those kinds of dynamics and multiple conformations are still quite challenging for the AI models to predict,” said James Zou, PhD, associate professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California.

“We’re finding more and more that the only way we can make these structures useful for drug discovery is if we incorporate dynamics, if we incorporate more physics into the model,” said Monteiro da Silva.

Monteiro da Silva spent 3 years during his PhD at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, running physics-based simulations in the lab, trying to understand why proteins carrying certain mutations are drug resistant. His results showed how “the changing landscape of shapes that a protein can take” prevented the drug from binding.

It took him 3 years to model just four mutations.

AI can do better — and the struggle is fascinating. By developing models that build on the predictive power of AlphaFold, scientists are uncovering new details about protein activity — insights that can lead to new therapeutics and reveal why existing ones stop working — much faster than they could with traditional methods or AlphaFold alone.

 

New Windows into Protein Dynamics

By predicting protein structural details, AlphaFold models also made it possible to predict pockets where drugs could bind.

A notable step, “but that’s just the starting point,” said Pedro Beltrao, PhD, an associate professor at Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “It’s still very difficult, given a pocket, to actually design the drug or figure out what the pocket binds.”

Going back to the lock-and-key analogy: While he was at Brown, with a team of researchers in the Rubenstein Group, Monteiro da Silva helped create a model to better understand how mutations affect “the shape and dynamics of the lock.” They manipulated the amino acid sequences of proteins, guiding their evolution. This enabled them to use AlphaFold to predict “protein ensembles” and how frequently those ensembles appear. Each ensemble represents the many different shapes a protein can take under given conditions.

“Essentially, it tries to find the most common shapes that a protein will take over an arbitrary amount of time,” Monteiro da Silva said. “If we can predict these ensembles at scale and fast, then we can screen many mutations that cause resistance and develop drugs that will not be affected by that resistance.”

To evaluate their method, the researchers focused on ABL1, a well-studied kinase that causes leukemia. ABL1 can be drugged – unless it carries or develops a mutation that causes drug resistance. Currently there are no drugs that work against proteins carrying those mutations, according to Monteiro da Silva. The researchers used their hybrid AI-meets-physics method to investigate how drugs bind to different ABL1 mutations, screening 100 mutations in just 1 month.

“It’s not going to be perfect for every one of them. But if we have 100 and we get 20 with good accuracy, that’s better than doing four over 3 years,” Monteiro da Silva said.

A forthcoming paper will make their model publicly available in “an easy-to-use graphical interface” that they hope clinicians and medicinal chemists will try out. It can also complement other AI-based tools that dig into protein dynamics, according to Monteiro da Silva.

 

Complementary Tools to Speed Up Discovery 

Another aspect of the protein problem is scale. One protein can interact with hundreds of other proteins, which in turn may interact with hundreds more, all of which comprise the human interactome.

Feixiong Cheng, PhD, helped build PIONEER, a deep learning model that predicts the three-dimensional (3D) structure of interactions between proteins across the interactome.

Most disease mutations disrupt specific interactions between proteins, making their affinity stronger or weaker, explained Cheng. To treat a disease without causing major side effects, scientists need a precise understanding of those interactions.

“From the drug discovery perspective, we cannot just focus on single proteins. We have to understand the protein environment, in particular how the protein interacts with other proteins,” said Cheng, director of Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, Cleveland.

PIONEER helps by blending AlphaFold’s protein structure predictions with next-generation sequencing, a type of genomic research that identifies mutations in the human genome. The model predicts the 3D structure of the places where proteins interact — the binding sites, or interfaces — across the interactome.

“We tell you not only that a binds b, but where on a and where on b the two proteins interact,” said Haiyuan Yu, PhD, director of the Center for Innovative Proteomics, Cornell University, and co-creator of PIONEER.

This can help scientists understand “why a mutation, protein, or even network is a good target for therapeutic discovery,” Cheng said.

The researchers validated PIONEER’s predictions in the lab, testing the impacts of roughly 3000 mutations on 7000 pairs of interacting proteins. Based on their findings, they plan to develop and test treatments for lung and endometrial cancer.

PIONEER can also help scientists home in on how a mutation causes a disease, such as by showing recurrent mutations.

“If you find cancer mutations hitting an interface again and again and again, it means that this is likely to be driving cancer progression,” said Beltrao.

Beltrao’s lab and others have looked for recurrent mutations by using AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 to directly model protein interactions. It’s a much slower approach (Pioneer is more than 5000 faster than AlphaFold Multimer, according to Cheng). But it could allow scientists to model interfaces that are not shown by PIONEER.

“You will need many different things to try to come up with a structural modeling of the interactome, and all these will have limitations,” said Beltrao. “Their method is a very good step forward, and there’ll be other approaches that are complementary, to continue to add details.”

 

And It Wouldn’t be an AI Mission Without ChatGPT

Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are another way that scientists are adding details to protein structure predictions. Zou used GPT-4 to “fine tune” a protein language model, called evolutionary scale modeling (ESM-2), which predicts protein structures directly from a protein sequence.

First, they trained ChatGPT on thousands of papers and studies containing information about the functions, biophysical properties, and disease relevance of different mutations. Next, they used the trained model to “teach” ESM-2, boosting its ability “to predict which mutations are likely to have larger effects or smaller effects,” Zou said. The same could be done for a model like AlphaFold, according to Zou.

“They are quite complementary in that the large language model contains a lot more information about the functions and the biophysics of different mutations and proteins as captured in text,” he said, whereas “you can’t give AlphaFold a piece of paper.”

Exactly how AlphaFold makes its predictions is another mystery. “It will somehow learn protein dynamics phenomenologically,” said Monteiro da Silva. He and others are trying to understand how that happens, in hopes of creating even more accurate predictive models. But for the time being, AI-based methods still need assistance from physics.

“The dream is that we achieve a state where we rely on just the fast methods, and they’re accurate enough,” he said. “But we’re so far from that.”

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

The question has been lingering for years in medical science circles. Since 2020, when the artificial intelligence (AI) model AlphaFold made it possible to predict protein structures, would the technology open the drug discovery floodgates?

Short answer: No. At least not yet.

The longer answer goes something like this:

A drug target (such as a mutation) is like a lock. The right drug (a protein designed to bind to the mutation, stopping its activity) is the key. But proteins are fidgety and flexible.

“They’re basically molecular springs,” said Gabriel Monteiro da Silva, PhD, a computational chemistry research scientist at Genesis Therapeutics. “Your key can bend and alter the shape of the lock, and if you don’t account for that, your key might fail.”

This is the protein problem in drug development. Another issue making this challenge so vexing is that proteins don’t act in isolation. Their interactions with other proteins, ribonucleic acid, and DNA can affect how they bind to molecules and the shapes they adopt.

Newer versions of AlphaFold, such as AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 (the code for which was recently revealed for academic use), can predict many interactions among proteins and between proteins and other molecules. But these tools still have weak points scientists are trying to overcome or work around.

“Those kinds of dynamics and multiple conformations are still quite challenging for the AI models to predict,” said James Zou, PhD, associate professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California.

“We’re finding more and more that the only way we can make these structures useful for drug discovery is if we incorporate dynamics, if we incorporate more physics into the model,” said Monteiro da Silva.

Monteiro da Silva spent 3 years during his PhD at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, running physics-based simulations in the lab, trying to understand why proteins carrying certain mutations are drug resistant. His results showed how “the changing landscape of shapes that a protein can take” prevented the drug from binding.

It took him 3 years to model just four mutations.

AI can do better — and the struggle is fascinating. By developing models that build on the predictive power of AlphaFold, scientists are uncovering new details about protein activity — insights that can lead to new therapeutics and reveal why existing ones stop working — much faster than they could with traditional methods or AlphaFold alone.

 

New Windows into Protein Dynamics

By predicting protein structural details, AlphaFold models also made it possible to predict pockets where drugs could bind.

A notable step, “but that’s just the starting point,” said Pedro Beltrao, PhD, an associate professor at Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “It’s still very difficult, given a pocket, to actually design the drug or figure out what the pocket binds.”

Going back to the lock-and-key analogy: While he was at Brown, with a team of researchers in the Rubenstein Group, Monteiro da Silva helped create a model to better understand how mutations affect “the shape and dynamics of the lock.” They manipulated the amino acid sequences of proteins, guiding their evolution. This enabled them to use AlphaFold to predict “protein ensembles” and how frequently those ensembles appear. Each ensemble represents the many different shapes a protein can take under given conditions.

“Essentially, it tries to find the most common shapes that a protein will take over an arbitrary amount of time,” Monteiro da Silva said. “If we can predict these ensembles at scale and fast, then we can screen many mutations that cause resistance and develop drugs that will not be affected by that resistance.”

To evaluate their method, the researchers focused on ABL1, a well-studied kinase that causes leukemia. ABL1 can be drugged – unless it carries or develops a mutation that causes drug resistance. Currently there are no drugs that work against proteins carrying those mutations, according to Monteiro da Silva. The researchers used their hybrid AI-meets-physics method to investigate how drugs bind to different ABL1 mutations, screening 100 mutations in just 1 month.

“It’s not going to be perfect for every one of them. But if we have 100 and we get 20 with good accuracy, that’s better than doing four over 3 years,” Monteiro da Silva said.

A forthcoming paper will make their model publicly available in “an easy-to-use graphical interface” that they hope clinicians and medicinal chemists will try out. It can also complement other AI-based tools that dig into protein dynamics, according to Monteiro da Silva.

 

Complementary Tools to Speed Up Discovery 

Another aspect of the protein problem is scale. One protein can interact with hundreds of other proteins, which in turn may interact with hundreds more, all of which comprise the human interactome.

Feixiong Cheng, PhD, helped build PIONEER, a deep learning model that predicts the three-dimensional (3D) structure of interactions between proteins across the interactome.

Most disease mutations disrupt specific interactions between proteins, making their affinity stronger or weaker, explained Cheng. To treat a disease without causing major side effects, scientists need a precise understanding of those interactions.

“From the drug discovery perspective, we cannot just focus on single proteins. We have to understand the protein environment, in particular how the protein interacts with other proteins,” said Cheng, director of Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, Cleveland.

PIONEER helps by blending AlphaFold’s protein structure predictions with next-generation sequencing, a type of genomic research that identifies mutations in the human genome. The model predicts the 3D structure of the places where proteins interact — the binding sites, or interfaces — across the interactome.

“We tell you not only that a binds b, but where on a and where on b the two proteins interact,” said Haiyuan Yu, PhD, director of the Center for Innovative Proteomics, Cornell University, and co-creator of PIONEER.

This can help scientists understand “why a mutation, protein, or even network is a good target for therapeutic discovery,” Cheng said.

The researchers validated PIONEER’s predictions in the lab, testing the impacts of roughly 3000 mutations on 7000 pairs of interacting proteins. Based on their findings, they plan to develop and test treatments for lung and endometrial cancer.

PIONEER can also help scientists home in on how a mutation causes a disease, such as by showing recurrent mutations.

“If you find cancer mutations hitting an interface again and again and again, it means that this is likely to be driving cancer progression,” said Beltrao.

Beltrao’s lab and others have looked for recurrent mutations by using AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 to directly model protein interactions. It’s a much slower approach (Pioneer is more than 5000 faster than AlphaFold Multimer, according to Cheng). But it could allow scientists to model interfaces that are not shown by PIONEER.

“You will need many different things to try to come up with a structural modeling of the interactome, and all these will have limitations,” said Beltrao. “Their method is a very good step forward, and there’ll be other approaches that are complementary, to continue to add details.”

 

And It Wouldn’t be an AI Mission Without ChatGPT

Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are another way that scientists are adding details to protein structure predictions. Zou used GPT-4 to “fine tune” a protein language model, called evolutionary scale modeling (ESM-2), which predicts protein structures directly from a protein sequence.

First, they trained ChatGPT on thousands of papers and studies containing information about the functions, biophysical properties, and disease relevance of different mutations. Next, they used the trained model to “teach” ESM-2, boosting its ability “to predict which mutations are likely to have larger effects or smaller effects,” Zou said. The same could be done for a model like AlphaFold, according to Zou.

“They are quite complementary in that the large language model contains a lot more information about the functions and the biophysics of different mutations and proteins as captured in text,” he said, whereas “you can’t give AlphaFold a piece of paper.”

Exactly how AlphaFold makes its predictions is another mystery. “It will somehow learn protein dynamics phenomenologically,” said Monteiro da Silva. He and others are trying to understand how that happens, in hopes of creating even more accurate predictive models. But for the time being, AI-based methods still need assistance from physics.

“The dream is that we achieve a state where we rely on just the fast methods, and they’re accurate enough,” he said. “But we’re so far from that.”

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

Despite being a targeted therapy, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) can cause significant off-target toxicity to the eyes of patients being treated for advanced multiple myeloma or cervical cancer, yet the risks remain relatively unknown, according to oncologists and ophthalmologists.

Such experts called for greater collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists, in interviews with Medscape Medical News.

ADCs combine a monoclonal antibody targeted at an antigen overexpressed on cancer cells with a toxic chemotherapy payload — the aim being to maximize the effectiveness of the drug against the tumor while minimizing the damage to healthy tissues and reducing systemic toxicity.

Yet trastuzumab duocarmazine (T-Duo), a third-generation human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–targeted ADC designed to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, was recently found to have a notable adverse effect in the TULIP trial of 437 patients.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug was associated with a significant increase in progression-free survival over physician’s choice of therapy. However, 78% of patients in the ADC group experienced at least one treatment-emergent ocular toxicity adverse event vs 29.2% of those in the control group.

Moreover, grade 3 or high ocular toxicity events were reported by 21% of patients in the experimental group compared with none of those who received physician’s choice.

 

Ocular Toxicities Seen on Ocular Surface

Ocular toxicities with these drugs are “not necessarily a new thing,” said Joann J. Kang, MD, director, Cornea and Refractive Surgery, and associate professor of ophthalmology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York.

“But what we’re seeing with certain ADCs is a lot of ocular toxicity, especially on the ocular surface,” with the degree toxicity varying depending on the ADC in question. “It’s definitely a real concern.”

Kang noted that separate from T-Duo, certain ADCs already come with black box warnings for ocular toxicity, including:

• Belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) — approved for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and carries a warning specifically for keratopathy.
• Tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak) — indicated for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer and can cause changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva.
• Mirvetuximab soravtansine (Elahere) — used to treat folate receptor (FR) alpha–positive ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers and can lead to keratopathy, blurred vision, and dry eyes.

Indeed, the American Academy of Ophthalmology 2024 annual meeting saw research presented indicating that mirvetuximab was associated with moderate or severe corneal toxicity in 47% of patients treated for primary gynecologic malignancies.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the study, by researchers at Byers Eye Institute of Stanford University in Stanford, California, was a retrospective analysis of 36 eyes of 18 women who received mirvetuximab for FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant primary ovarian cancer.

 

What Are the Causes?

But why would a drug that is targeted specifically to a cancer tumor, thanks to the presence of a monoclonal antibody, cause off-target effects such as ocular toxicity?

Kathy D. Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, pointed out that they are targeted in a relative and not absolute sense, meaning that the antigen target may not be truly limited to the tumor cells.

There can also be “a lot of ways that you could get systemic toxicities,” she said.

For example, if the linker connecting the antibody and the chemotherapy payload breaks prematurely or is not stable, or if the drug leaches out into the tumor microenvironment and then is “picked up into the circulation, that can give you systemic toxicity,” she said.

In addition, the drug may, once it is in the tumor cells, be metabolized to an active metabolite that could, again, result in systemic exposure.

 

Side Effects Are Underappreciated and Distressing

Ocular toxicity remains underappreciated among oncologists prescribing these drugs. One reason is that it “did not get enough attention” in the initial clinical trial reports, Miller said she suspects.

Another potential reason for this is that “we’re not used to thinking about it because it’s not particularly common among the drugs that oncologists use frequently,” she added. Additionally, it tends to come up later during treatment, “so people have to be on therapy for some time before you start to see it.”

Nevertheless, Miller underlined that ocular toxicity “can be particularly distressing for patients, as it’s uncomfortable [and] can lead to scarring, so some of the vision issues can be permanent.”

“We often see in these situations that there are different types of ocular toxicities that present in different patients,” said Jane L. Meisel, MD, co-director, Breast Medical Oncology, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

“Corneal damage is pretty common, and patients can present with blurry vision, or dry eyes, or light sensitivity. And unlike some side effects, these are things that really impact people at every waking moment of their day.”

“So they’re pretty clinically significant side effects, even if they’re not life-threatening,” Meisel emphasized.

Miller suspects that more heavily pretreated patients may be more likely to experience ocular toxicity, as “there’s a much higher incidence of dry eyes in our patients than we recognize.”

She added: “We don’t usually ask about it, and we certainly don’t routinely do Schirmer’s tests,” which determine whether the eye produces enough tears to keep it moist.

 

Preventive Measures

For patients receiving tisotumab or mirvetuximab who experience ocular toxicity, Kang said the recommendation is to use steroid eye drops before, during, and after treatment with the ADC.

However, she noted that steroids have not been found to be useful in patients given belantamab, so clinicians have tried vasoconstrictor eye drops immediately prior to the infusion, as well as ocular cooling masks, which “are thought to help by reducing blood supply to the ocular areas.”

Other approaches to minimize ocular toxicity have included longer infusion times, so it’s “not so much of a hefty dose at one time,” Kang added.

She underlined that grade 2 and 3 ocular toxicities can lead to dose delays or dose modifications, and “usually by the time you get a grade 4 event, then you may need to discontinue the medication.”

This can have consequences for the patients because they are often “very sick, and this may be their third agent that they’re trying,” or it may be that their tumor is responding to a new treatment, but it has to be withheld because of an ocular toxicity.

“It can be incredibly frustrating for patients, and also for oncologists, and then for ophthalmologists,” Kang said.

 

Closer Collaboration Between Specialists Needed

What’s known about ocular side effects in patients taking ADCs underlines that there is a need for closer collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists.

“In oncology, especially as immunotherapies came to the forefront, our relationships with our endocrinology colleagues have become stronger because we’ve needed them to help us manage things like thyroid toxicity and pituitary issues related to immunotherapy,” Meisel said.

With toxicities that may be “very impactful for patient quality of life, like ocular toxicity, we will need to learn more about them and develop protocols for management, along with our ophthalmology colleagues, so that we can keep patients as comfortable as possible, while maximizing the efficacy of these drugs.”

Miller agreed, saying oncologists need to have “a conversation with a local ophthalmologist,” although she conceded that, in many areas, such specialists “are in short supply.”

The oncologist “not only needs to be aware” of and looking for ocular toxicity when using these ADCs but also needs to be thinking: “If I run into trouble here, who’s my ophthalmology backup? Are they familiar with this drug? And do we have a plan for the multispecialty management of patients who run into this toxicity?”

 

Setting Counts When Assessing Toxicities

But do all these considerations mean that ADCs’ potential ocular toxicity should give clinicians pause when considering whether to use these drugs?

“What my patients most want are drugs that work; that are effective in controlling their tumors,” Miller said.

“Every drug we use has potential toxicities, and which toxicities are most physically troublesome [or] are the greatest concern may vary from patient to patient, and it may vary a lot from patients with metastatic disease to those in the curative setting.”

She explained that “toxicities that might not be prohibitive at all in the metastatic setting [may] have to be a much bigger part of our considerations” when moving drugs into the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

This, Miller underlined, is where the ocular toxicity with these ADCs “may be much more prohibitive.”

TULIP was funded by Byondis BV.

Turner declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Repare Therapeutics, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inivata, Guardant Health, Exact Sciences, and Relay Therapeutics.

Meisel declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Seagen, Olema Oncology, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, Stemline, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite being a targeted therapy, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) can cause significant off-target toxicity to the eyes of patients being treated for advanced multiple myeloma or cervical cancer, yet the risks remain relatively unknown, according to oncologists and ophthalmologists.

Such experts called for greater collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists, in interviews with Medscape Medical News.

ADCs combine a monoclonal antibody targeted at an antigen overexpressed on cancer cells with a toxic chemotherapy payload — the aim being to maximize the effectiveness of the drug against the tumor while minimizing the damage to healthy tissues and reducing systemic toxicity.

Yet trastuzumab duocarmazine (T-Duo), a third-generation human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–targeted ADC designed to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, was recently found to have a notable adverse effect in the TULIP trial of 437 patients.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug was associated with a significant increase in progression-free survival over physician’s choice of therapy. However, 78% of patients in the ADC group experienced at least one treatment-emergent ocular toxicity adverse event vs 29.2% of those in the control group.

Moreover, grade 3 or high ocular toxicity events were reported by 21% of patients in the experimental group compared with none of those who received physician’s choice.

 

Ocular Toxicities Seen on Ocular Surface

Ocular toxicities with these drugs are “not necessarily a new thing,” said Joann J. Kang, MD, director, Cornea and Refractive Surgery, and associate professor of ophthalmology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York.

“But what we’re seeing with certain ADCs is a lot of ocular toxicity, especially on the ocular surface,” with the degree toxicity varying depending on the ADC in question. “It’s definitely a real concern.”

Kang noted that separate from T-Duo, certain ADCs already come with black box warnings for ocular toxicity, including:

• Belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) — approved for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and carries a warning specifically for keratopathy.
• Tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak) — indicated for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer and can cause changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva.
• Mirvetuximab soravtansine (Elahere) — used to treat folate receptor (FR) alpha–positive ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers and can lead to keratopathy, blurred vision, and dry eyes.

Indeed, the American Academy of Ophthalmology 2024 annual meeting saw research presented indicating that mirvetuximab was associated with moderate or severe corneal toxicity in 47% of patients treated for primary gynecologic malignancies.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the study, by researchers at Byers Eye Institute of Stanford University in Stanford, California, was a retrospective analysis of 36 eyes of 18 women who received mirvetuximab for FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant primary ovarian cancer.

 

What Are the Causes?

But why would a drug that is targeted specifically to a cancer tumor, thanks to the presence of a monoclonal antibody, cause off-target effects such as ocular toxicity?

Kathy D. Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, pointed out that they are targeted in a relative and not absolute sense, meaning that the antigen target may not be truly limited to the tumor cells.

There can also be “a lot of ways that you could get systemic toxicities,” she said.

For example, if the linker connecting the antibody and the chemotherapy payload breaks prematurely or is not stable, or if the drug leaches out into the tumor microenvironment and then is “picked up into the circulation, that can give you systemic toxicity,” she said.

In addition, the drug may, once it is in the tumor cells, be metabolized to an active metabolite that could, again, result in systemic exposure.

 

Side Effects Are Underappreciated and Distressing

Ocular toxicity remains underappreciated among oncologists prescribing these drugs. One reason is that it “did not get enough attention” in the initial clinical trial reports, Miller said she suspects.

Another potential reason for this is that “we’re not used to thinking about it because it’s not particularly common among the drugs that oncologists use frequently,” she added. Additionally, it tends to come up later during treatment, “so people have to be on therapy for some time before you start to see it.”

Nevertheless, Miller underlined that ocular toxicity “can be particularly distressing for patients, as it’s uncomfortable [and] can lead to scarring, so some of the vision issues can be permanent.”

“We often see in these situations that there are different types of ocular toxicities that present in different patients,” said Jane L. Meisel, MD, co-director, Breast Medical Oncology, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

“Corneal damage is pretty common, and patients can present with blurry vision, or dry eyes, or light sensitivity. And unlike some side effects, these are things that really impact people at every waking moment of their day.”

“So they’re pretty clinically significant side effects, even if they’re not life-threatening,” Meisel emphasized.

Miller suspects that more heavily pretreated patients may be more likely to experience ocular toxicity, as “there’s a much higher incidence of dry eyes in our patients than we recognize.”

She added: “We don’t usually ask about it, and we certainly don’t routinely do Schirmer’s tests,” which determine whether the eye produces enough tears to keep it moist.

 

Preventive Measures

For patients receiving tisotumab or mirvetuximab who experience ocular toxicity, Kang said the recommendation is to use steroid eye drops before, during, and after treatment with the ADC.

However, she noted that steroids have not been found to be useful in patients given belantamab, so clinicians have tried vasoconstrictor eye drops immediately prior to the infusion, as well as ocular cooling masks, which “are thought to help by reducing blood supply to the ocular areas.”

Other approaches to minimize ocular toxicity have included longer infusion times, so it’s “not so much of a hefty dose at one time,” Kang added.

She underlined that grade 2 and 3 ocular toxicities can lead to dose delays or dose modifications, and “usually by the time you get a grade 4 event, then you may need to discontinue the medication.”

This can have consequences for the patients because they are often “very sick, and this may be their third agent that they’re trying,” or it may be that their tumor is responding to a new treatment, but it has to be withheld because of an ocular toxicity.

“It can be incredibly frustrating for patients, and also for oncologists, and then for ophthalmologists,” Kang said.

 

Closer Collaboration Between Specialists Needed

What’s known about ocular side effects in patients taking ADCs underlines that there is a need for closer collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists.

“In oncology, especially as immunotherapies came to the forefront, our relationships with our endocrinology colleagues have become stronger because we’ve needed them to help us manage things like thyroid toxicity and pituitary issues related to immunotherapy,” Meisel said.

With toxicities that may be “very impactful for patient quality of life, like ocular toxicity, we will need to learn more about them and develop protocols for management, along with our ophthalmology colleagues, so that we can keep patients as comfortable as possible, while maximizing the efficacy of these drugs.”

Miller agreed, saying oncologists need to have “a conversation with a local ophthalmologist,” although she conceded that, in many areas, such specialists “are in short supply.”

The oncologist “not only needs to be aware” of and looking for ocular toxicity when using these ADCs but also needs to be thinking: “If I run into trouble here, who’s my ophthalmology backup? Are they familiar with this drug? And do we have a plan for the multispecialty management of patients who run into this toxicity?”

 

Setting Counts When Assessing Toxicities

But do all these considerations mean that ADCs’ potential ocular toxicity should give clinicians pause when considering whether to use these drugs?

“What my patients most want are drugs that work; that are effective in controlling their tumors,” Miller said.

“Every drug we use has potential toxicities, and which toxicities are most physically troublesome [or] are the greatest concern may vary from patient to patient, and it may vary a lot from patients with metastatic disease to those in the curative setting.”

She explained that “toxicities that might not be prohibitive at all in the metastatic setting [may] have to be a much bigger part of our considerations” when moving drugs into the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

This, Miller underlined, is where the ocular toxicity with these ADCs “may be much more prohibitive.”

TULIP was funded by Byondis BV.

Turner declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Repare Therapeutics, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inivata, Guardant Health, Exact Sciences, and Relay Therapeutics.

Meisel declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Seagen, Olema Oncology, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, Stemline, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite being a targeted therapy, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) can cause significant off-target toxicity to the eyes of patients being treated for advanced multiple myeloma or cervical cancer, yet the risks remain relatively unknown, according to oncologists and ophthalmologists.

Such experts called for greater collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists, in interviews with Medscape Medical News.

ADCs combine a monoclonal antibody targeted at an antigen overexpressed on cancer cells with a toxic chemotherapy payload — the aim being to maximize the effectiveness of the drug against the tumor while minimizing the damage to healthy tissues and reducing systemic toxicity.

Yet trastuzumab duocarmazine (T-Duo), a third-generation human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–targeted ADC designed to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, was recently found to have a notable adverse effect in the TULIP trial of 437 patients.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug was associated with a significant increase in progression-free survival over physician’s choice of therapy. However, 78% of patients in the ADC group experienced at least one treatment-emergent ocular toxicity adverse event vs 29.2% of those in the control group.

Moreover, grade 3 or high ocular toxicity events were reported by 21% of patients in the experimental group compared with none of those who received physician’s choice.

 

Ocular Toxicities Seen on Ocular Surface

Ocular toxicities with these drugs are “not necessarily a new thing,” said Joann J. Kang, MD, director, Cornea and Refractive Surgery, and associate professor of ophthalmology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York.

“But what we’re seeing with certain ADCs is a lot of ocular toxicity, especially on the ocular surface,” with the degree toxicity varying depending on the ADC in question. “It’s definitely a real concern.”

Kang noted that separate from T-Duo, certain ADCs already come with black box warnings for ocular toxicity, including:

• Belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) — approved for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and carries a warning specifically for keratopathy.
• Tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak) — indicated for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer and can cause changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva.
• Mirvetuximab soravtansine (Elahere) — used to treat folate receptor (FR) alpha–positive ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers and can lead to keratopathy, blurred vision, and dry eyes.

Indeed, the American Academy of Ophthalmology 2024 annual meeting saw research presented indicating that mirvetuximab was associated with moderate or severe corneal toxicity in 47% of patients treated for primary gynecologic malignancies.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the study, by researchers at Byers Eye Institute of Stanford University in Stanford, California, was a retrospective analysis of 36 eyes of 18 women who received mirvetuximab for FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant primary ovarian cancer.

 

What Are the Causes?

But why would a drug that is targeted specifically to a cancer tumor, thanks to the presence of a monoclonal antibody, cause off-target effects such as ocular toxicity?

Kathy D. Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, pointed out that they are targeted in a relative and not absolute sense, meaning that the antigen target may not be truly limited to the tumor cells.

There can also be “a lot of ways that you could get systemic toxicities,” she said.

For example, if the linker connecting the antibody and the chemotherapy payload breaks prematurely or is not stable, or if the drug leaches out into the tumor microenvironment and then is “picked up into the circulation, that can give you systemic toxicity,” she said.

In addition, the drug may, once it is in the tumor cells, be metabolized to an active metabolite that could, again, result in systemic exposure.

 

Side Effects Are Underappreciated and Distressing

Ocular toxicity remains underappreciated among oncologists prescribing these drugs. One reason is that it “did not get enough attention” in the initial clinical trial reports, Miller said she suspects.

Another potential reason for this is that “we’re not used to thinking about it because it’s not particularly common among the drugs that oncologists use frequently,” she added. Additionally, it tends to come up later during treatment, “so people have to be on therapy for some time before you start to see it.”

Nevertheless, Miller underlined that ocular toxicity “can be particularly distressing for patients, as it’s uncomfortable [and] can lead to scarring, so some of the vision issues can be permanent.”

“We often see in these situations that there are different types of ocular toxicities that present in different patients,” said Jane L. Meisel, MD, co-director, Breast Medical Oncology, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

“Corneal damage is pretty common, and patients can present with blurry vision, or dry eyes, or light sensitivity. And unlike some side effects, these are things that really impact people at every waking moment of their day.”

“So they’re pretty clinically significant side effects, even if they’re not life-threatening,” Meisel emphasized.

Miller suspects that more heavily pretreated patients may be more likely to experience ocular toxicity, as “there’s a much higher incidence of dry eyes in our patients than we recognize.”

She added: “We don’t usually ask about it, and we certainly don’t routinely do Schirmer’s tests,” which determine whether the eye produces enough tears to keep it moist.

 

Preventive Measures

For patients receiving tisotumab or mirvetuximab who experience ocular toxicity, Kang said the recommendation is to use steroid eye drops before, during, and after treatment with the ADC.

However, she noted that steroids have not been found to be useful in patients given belantamab, so clinicians have tried vasoconstrictor eye drops immediately prior to the infusion, as well as ocular cooling masks, which “are thought to help by reducing blood supply to the ocular areas.”

Other approaches to minimize ocular toxicity have included longer infusion times, so it’s “not so much of a hefty dose at one time,” Kang added.

She underlined that grade 2 and 3 ocular toxicities can lead to dose delays or dose modifications, and “usually by the time you get a grade 4 event, then you may need to discontinue the medication.”

This can have consequences for the patients because they are often “very sick, and this may be their third agent that they’re trying,” or it may be that their tumor is responding to a new treatment, but it has to be withheld because of an ocular toxicity.

“It can be incredibly frustrating for patients, and also for oncologists, and then for ophthalmologists,” Kang said.

 

Closer Collaboration Between Specialists Needed

What’s known about ocular side effects in patients taking ADCs underlines that there is a need for closer collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists.

“In oncology, especially as immunotherapies came to the forefront, our relationships with our endocrinology colleagues have become stronger because we’ve needed them to help us manage things like thyroid toxicity and pituitary issues related to immunotherapy,” Meisel said.

With toxicities that may be “very impactful for patient quality of life, like ocular toxicity, we will need to learn more about them and develop protocols for management, along with our ophthalmology colleagues, so that we can keep patients as comfortable as possible, while maximizing the efficacy of these drugs.”

Miller agreed, saying oncologists need to have “a conversation with a local ophthalmologist,” although she conceded that, in many areas, such specialists “are in short supply.”

The oncologist “not only needs to be aware” of and looking for ocular toxicity when using these ADCs but also needs to be thinking: “If I run into trouble here, who’s my ophthalmology backup? Are they familiar with this drug? And do we have a plan for the multispecialty management of patients who run into this toxicity?”

 

Setting Counts When Assessing Toxicities

But do all these considerations mean that ADCs’ potential ocular toxicity should give clinicians pause when considering whether to use these drugs?

“What my patients most want are drugs that work; that are effective in controlling their tumors,” Miller said.

“Every drug we use has potential toxicities, and which toxicities are most physically troublesome [or] are the greatest concern may vary from patient to patient, and it may vary a lot from patients with metastatic disease to those in the curative setting.”

She explained that “toxicities that might not be prohibitive at all in the metastatic setting [may] have to be a much bigger part of our considerations” when moving drugs into the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

This, Miller underlined, is where the ocular toxicity with these ADCs “may be much more prohibitive.”

TULIP was funded by Byondis BV.

Turner declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Repare Therapeutics, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inivata, Guardant Health, Exact Sciences, and Relay Therapeutics.

Meisel declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Seagen, Olema Oncology, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, Stemline, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adding camrelizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases pathological complete response rate to 56.8% vs 44.7% with placebo in early or locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer. The combination shows consistent benefits across patient subgroups with a manageable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial enrolled 441 females (median age, 48 years) with early or locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer from 40 hospitals in China between November 2020 and May 2023.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either camrelizumab 200 mg (n = 222) or placebo (n = 219) combined with chemotherapy every 2 weeks, with median follow-up period of 14.4 months.
• Treatment included nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m²) plus carboplatin (area under curve, 1.5) on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 16 weeks, followed by epirubicin (90 mg/m²) and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²) every 2 weeks for 8 weeks.
• The primary endpoint was pathological complete response, defined as no invasive tumor in breast and lymph nodes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pathological complete response was achieved in 56.8% (95% CI, 50.0%-63.4%) of patients in the camrelizumab-chemotherapy group vs 44.7% (95% CI, 38.0%-51.6%) in the placebo-chemotherapy group (rate difference, 12.2%; 95% CI, 3.3%-21.2%; P = .004).
• Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 89.2% of camrelizumab-chemotherapy group vs 83.1% in placebo-chemotherapy group, with serious adverse events in 34.7% vs 22.8%, respectively.
• Event-free survival rate at 18 months was 86.6% (95% CI, 79.9%-91.1%) with camrelizumab-chemotherapy vs 83.6% (95% CI, 76.2%-88.9%) with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.46-1.42).
• Disease-free survival rate at 12 months reached 91.9% (95% CI, 85.5%-95.5%) with camrelizumab-chemotherapy compared with 87.8% (95% CI, 80.3%-92.6%) with placebo-chemotherapy (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.27-1.24).

IN PRACTICE:

“The addition of camrelizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response... The benefits of camrelizumab-chemotherapy with respect to pCR were generally consistent across subgroups,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zhi-Ming Shao, MD, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center in Shanghai, China. It was published online on December 13 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study’s limitations include short follow-up duration preventing assessment of mature survival data and long-term safety profile, uncertainty about optimal duration of adjuvant camrelizumab treatment, small sample sizes in some subgroups warranting cautious interpretation, and potential limited generalizability as the study was conducted only in Chinese patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. The authors and funder were involved in data collection, analysis, and interpretation and guaranteed the accuracy, completeness of the data, writing of the report, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Adding camrelizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases pathological complete response rate to 56.8% vs 44.7% with placebo in early or locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer. The combination shows consistent benefits across patient subgroups with a manageable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial enrolled 441 females (median age, 48 years) with early or locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer from 40 hospitals in China between November 2020 and May 2023.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either camrelizumab 200 mg (n = 222) or placebo (n = 219) combined with chemotherapy every 2 weeks, with median follow-up period of 14.4 months.
• Treatment included nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m²) plus carboplatin (area under curve, 1.5) on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 16 weeks, followed by epirubicin (90 mg/m²) and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²) every 2 weeks for 8 weeks.
• The primary endpoint was pathological complete response, defined as no invasive tumor in breast and lymph nodes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pathological complete response was achieved in 56.8% (95% CI, 50.0%-63.4%) of patients in the camrelizumab-chemotherapy group vs 44.7% (95% CI, 38.0%-51.6%) in the placebo-chemotherapy group (rate difference, 12.2%; 95% CI, 3.3%-21.2%; P = .004).
• Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 89.2% of camrelizumab-chemotherapy group vs 83.1% in placebo-chemotherapy group, with serious adverse events in 34.7% vs 22.8%, respectively.
• Event-free survival rate at 18 months was 86.6% (95% CI, 79.9%-91.1%) with camrelizumab-chemotherapy vs 83.6% (95% CI, 76.2%-88.9%) with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.46-1.42).
• Disease-free survival rate at 12 months reached 91.9% (95% CI, 85.5%-95.5%) with camrelizumab-chemotherapy compared with 87.8% (95% CI, 80.3%-92.6%) with placebo-chemotherapy (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.27-1.24).

IN PRACTICE:

“The addition of camrelizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response... The benefits of camrelizumab-chemotherapy with respect to pCR were generally consistent across subgroups,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zhi-Ming Shao, MD, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center in Shanghai, China. It was published online on December 13 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study’s limitations include short follow-up duration preventing assessment of mature survival data and long-term safety profile, uncertainty about optimal duration of adjuvant camrelizumab treatment, small sample sizes in some subgroups warranting cautious interpretation, and potential limited generalizability as the study was conducted only in Chinese patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. The authors and funder were involved in data collection, analysis, and interpretation and guaranteed the accuracy, completeness of the data, writing of the report, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Adding camrelizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases pathological complete response rate to 56.8% vs 44.7% with placebo in early or locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer. The combination shows consistent benefits across patient subgroups with a manageable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial enrolled 441 females (median age, 48 years) with early or locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer from 40 hospitals in China between November 2020 and May 2023.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either camrelizumab 200 mg (n = 222) or placebo (n = 219) combined with chemotherapy every 2 weeks, with median follow-up period of 14.4 months.
• Treatment included nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m²) plus carboplatin (area under curve, 1.5) on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 16 weeks, followed by epirubicin (90 mg/m²) and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²) every 2 weeks for 8 weeks.
• The primary endpoint was pathological complete response, defined as no invasive tumor in breast and lymph nodes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pathological complete response was achieved in 56.8% (95% CI, 50.0%-63.4%) of patients in the camrelizumab-chemotherapy group vs 44.7% (95% CI, 38.0%-51.6%) in the placebo-chemotherapy group (rate difference, 12.2%; 95% CI, 3.3%-21.2%; P = .004).
• Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 89.2% of camrelizumab-chemotherapy group vs 83.1% in placebo-chemotherapy group, with serious adverse events in 34.7% vs 22.8%, respectively.
• Event-free survival rate at 18 months was 86.6% (95% CI, 79.9%-91.1%) with camrelizumab-chemotherapy vs 83.6% (95% CI, 76.2%-88.9%) with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.46-1.42).
• Disease-free survival rate at 12 months reached 91.9% (95% CI, 85.5%-95.5%) with camrelizumab-chemotherapy compared with 87.8% (95% CI, 80.3%-92.6%) with placebo-chemotherapy (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.27-1.24).

IN PRACTICE:

“The addition of camrelizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response... The benefits of camrelizumab-chemotherapy with respect to pCR were generally consistent across subgroups,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zhi-Ming Shao, MD, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center in Shanghai, China. It was published online on December 13 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study’s limitations include short follow-up duration preventing assessment of mature survival data and long-term safety profile, uncertainty about optimal duration of adjuvant camrelizumab treatment, small sample sizes in some subgroups warranting cautious interpretation, and potential limited generalizability as the study was conducted only in Chinese patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. The authors and funder were involved in data collection, analysis, and interpretation and guaranteed the accuracy, completeness of the data, writing of the report, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

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

SAN ANTONIO — A large trial has begun to make the case for active surveillance as an alternative to immediate surgery for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.

The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.

“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.

If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.

The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.

Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.

The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.

The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.

In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.

Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.

The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.

With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.

Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.

Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.

These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.

The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.

However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.

With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.

 

What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?

A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.

“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.

Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.

The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.

COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.

COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

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

SAN ANTONIO — A large trial has begun to make the case for active surveillance as an alternative to immediate surgery for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.

The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.

“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.

If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.

The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.

Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.

The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.

The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.

In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.

Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.

The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.

With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.

Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.

Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.

These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.

The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.

However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.

With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.

 

What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?

A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.

“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.

Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.

The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.

COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.

COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

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

SAN ANTONIO — A large trial has begun to make the case for active surveillance as an alternative to immediate surgery for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.

The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.

“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.

If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.

The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.

Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.

The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.

The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.

In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.

Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.

The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.

With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.

Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.

Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.

These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.

The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.

However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.

With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.

 

What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?

A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.

“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.

Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.

The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.

COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.

COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

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

SAN ANTONIO — For patients with so-called “good-risk” ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who did not have radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery, adjuvant tamoxifen reduced their overall risks for invasive recurrence, but not their risks for recurrence in either the same or contralateral breast.

These findings come from an exploratory analysis of combined data from two clinical trials. They suggest that, for this select group of patients, the choice to forgo radiation following definitive surgery may be an acceptable option, assuming that they follow a full course of endocrine therapy.

“In the absence of survival impact for adjuvant therapy, the decision to recommend radiation therapy or endocrine therapy should be part of a shared decision process, and I think that this data helps us provide clearer data points to our patients to help them make choices between endocrine therapy and radiation therapy in the setting of good-risk [ductal carcinoma in situ],” said Jean L. Wright, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

She presented the findings in an oral abstract session and media briefing at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

 

Trial Results Combined

Wright and colleagues looked at pooled data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with low- or intermediate-grade DCIS with tumor size no larger than 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2 lesions, and with surgical margins ≥ 3 mm.

The trials included NRG/RTOG 9804, with 317 patients who fit the “good-risk category,” and ECOG-ACRIN E5194, which included a cohort of 561 patients that met the good-risk definition used for the exploratory analysis.

In each trial, tamoxifen use was optional, and choices were tracked. In the NRG/RTOG trial, 66% of patients used tamoxifen and 34% did not. The respective percentages in the ECOG/ACRIN trial were 30% and 70%.

The majority of patients were adherent to the 5-year prescribed course of tamoxifen, Wright said.

 

Analysis Details

In the combined data, the median age of patients who used tamoxifen vs who did not use tamoxifen was 58 vs 61 years.

In all, 23% of women in both the tamoxifen yes or no groups were premenopausal, with the remainder either postmenopausal or of unknown menopausal status.

After a median follow-up of 14.85 years, the rate of 15-year ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) was 19% for patients who did not receive tamoxifen vs 11.4% for those who did. This translated into a hazard ratio for IBR on tamoxifen of 0.52 (P = .001).

Tamoxifen also reduced the risk for invasive recurrence in the same breast, with a 15-year invasive IBR rate of 11.5% in the no tamoxifen group vs 6% in the yes tamoxifen group.

However, as noted before, tamoxifen use was not associated with significant reduction in the risk for noninvasive DCIS recurrence in the same breast, as evidenced by a 15-year DCIS IBR rate of 8.1% without tamoxifen and 5.5% with tamoxifen, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

 

A Surprising Result

One finding from the data that seemed to defy clinical wisdom was that tamoxifen use did not appear to significantly reduce the risk for events in the other breast. The 15-year rate of contralateral breast events was 8.8% in the no-tamoxifen group vs 5.6% in the yes tamoxifen group, a difference that was not statically significant.

“It was surprising that there was so little effect on contralateral disease,” commented Elinor Sawyer, MBBS, PhD, the invited discussant.

“But I think it’s really important, this decrease in ipsilateral invasive recurrence [with tamoxifen] because there are studies such as the Sloane study from the United Kingdom that show that if you develop an invasive recurrence after DCIS, you have a worse survival than those who develop a pure DCIS recurrence,” she said.

At the media briefing held prior to Wright’s presentation, moderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio in Texas, also said that she found it surprising that tamoxifen did not reduce risk for contralateral breast cancer “since every study that we’ve done has shown that.”

“I also found that result a little bit surprising,” Wright agreed.

“I think the main feature that we want to focus on is that this was a group of patients with a very clear inclusion criteria of this good-risk DCIS, and even though the definition of good-risk DCIS included patients with [tumors] up to 2.5 cm in DCIS, we saw that, in reality, the patients enrolled had very small DCIS. So I’m wondering if it’s perhaps that it’s related to the fact that patients that were enrolled in these studies had really low-risk features and perhaps just had a lower risk of contralateral breast events as compared to a broader population of patients with DCIS,” she said.

The analysis by Wright and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Wright reported receiving honoraria from ASTRO and PER. Sawyer disclosed receiving grants/research support from Pfizer, Seagen, and IQIVIA. Kaklamani disclosed serving as a speaker and/or consultant for AstraZeneca, Celldex Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, and Novartis and receiving research support from Eisai.

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

SAN ANTONIO — For patients with so-called “good-risk” ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who did not have radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery, adjuvant tamoxifen reduced their overall risks for invasive recurrence, but not their risks for recurrence in either the same or contralateral breast.

These findings come from an exploratory analysis of combined data from two clinical trials. They suggest that, for this select group of patients, the choice to forgo radiation following definitive surgery may be an acceptable option, assuming that they follow a full course of endocrine therapy.

“In the absence of survival impact for adjuvant therapy, the decision to recommend radiation therapy or endocrine therapy should be part of a shared decision process, and I think that this data helps us provide clearer data points to our patients to help them make choices between endocrine therapy and radiation therapy in the setting of good-risk [ductal carcinoma in situ],” said Jean L. Wright, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

She presented the findings in an oral abstract session and media briefing at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

 

Trial Results Combined

Wright and colleagues looked at pooled data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with low- or intermediate-grade DCIS with tumor size no larger than 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2 lesions, and with surgical margins ≥ 3 mm.

The trials included NRG/RTOG 9804, with 317 patients who fit the “good-risk category,” and ECOG-ACRIN E5194, which included a cohort of 561 patients that met the good-risk definition used for the exploratory analysis.

In each trial, tamoxifen use was optional, and choices were tracked. In the NRG/RTOG trial, 66% of patients used tamoxifen and 34% did not. The respective percentages in the ECOG/ACRIN trial were 30% and 70%.

The majority of patients were adherent to the 5-year prescribed course of tamoxifen, Wright said.

 

Analysis Details

In the combined data, the median age of patients who used tamoxifen vs who did not use tamoxifen was 58 vs 61 years.

In all, 23% of women in both the tamoxifen yes or no groups were premenopausal, with the remainder either postmenopausal or of unknown menopausal status.

After a median follow-up of 14.85 years, the rate of 15-year ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) was 19% for patients who did not receive tamoxifen vs 11.4% for those who did. This translated into a hazard ratio for IBR on tamoxifen of 0.52 (P = .001).

Tamoxifen also reduced the risk for invasive recurrence in the same breast, with a 15-year invasive IBR rate of 11.5% in the no tamoxifen group vs 6% in the yes tamoxifen group.

However, as noted before, tamoxifen use was not associated with significant reduction in the risk for noninvasive DCIS recurrence in the same breast, as evidenced by a 15-year DCIS IBR rate of 8.1% without tamoxifen and 5.5% with tamoxifen, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

 

A Surprising Result

One finding from the data that seemed to defy clinical wisdom was that tamoxifen use did not appear to significantly reduce the risk for events in the other breast. The 15-year rate of contralateral breast events was 8.8% in the no-tamoxifen group vs 5.6% in the yes tamoxifen group, a difference that was not statically significant.

“It was surprising that there was so little effect on contralateral disease,” commented Elinor Sawyer, MBBS, PhD, the invited discussant.

“But I think it’s really important, this decrease in ipsilateral invasive recurrence [with tamoxifen] because there are studies such as the Sloane study from the United Kingdom that show that if you develop an invasive recurrence after DCIS, you have a worse survival than those who develop a pure DCIS recurrence,” she said.

At the media briefing held prior to Wright’s presentation, moderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio in Texas, also said that she found it surprising that tamoxifen did not reduce risk for contralateral breast cancer “since every study that we’ve done has shown that.”

“I also found that result a little bit surprising,” Wright agreed.

“I think the main feature that we want to focus on is that this was a group of patients with a very clear inclusion criteria of this good-risk DCIS, and even though the definition of good-risk DCIS included patients with [tumors] up to 2.5 cm in DCIS, we saw that, in reality, the patients enrolled had very small DCIS. So I’m wondering if it’s perhaps that it’s related to the fact that patients that were enrolled in these studies had really low-risk features and perhaps just had a lower risk of contralateral breast events as compared to a broader population of patients with DCIS,” she said.

The analysis by Wright and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Wright reported receiving honoraria from ASTRO and PER. Sawyer disclosed receiving grants/research support from Pfizer, Seagen, and IQIVIA. Kaklamani disclosed serving as a speaker and/or consultant for AstraZeneca, Celldex Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, and Novartis and receiving research support from Eisai.

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

SAN ANTONIO — For patients with so-called “good-risk” ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who did not have radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery, adjuvant tamoxifen reduced their overall risks for invasive recurrence, but not their risks for recurrence in either the same or contralateral breast.

These findings come from an exploratory analysis of combined data from two clinical trials. They suggest that, for this select group of patients, the choice to forgo radiation following definitive surgery may be an acceptable option, assuming that they follow a full course of endocrine therapy.

“In the absence of survival impact for adjuvant therapy, the decision to recommend radiation therapy or endocrine therapy should be part of a shared decision process, and I think that this data helps us provide clearer data points to our patients to help them make choices between endocrine therapy and radiation therapy in the setting of good-risk [ductal carcinoma in situ],” said Jean L. Wright, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

She presented the findings in an oral abstract session and media briefing at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

 

Trial Results Combined

Wright and colleagues looked at pooled data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with low- or intermediate-grade DCIS with tumor size no larger than 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2 lesions, and with surgical margins ≥ 3 mm.

The trials included NRG/RTOG 9804, with 317 patients who fit the “good-risk category,” and ECOG-ACRIN E5194, which included a cohort of 561 patients that met the good-risk definition used for the exploratory analysis.

In each trial, tamoxifen use was optional, and choices were tracked. In the NRG/RTOG trial, 66% of patients used tamoxifen and 34% did not. The respective percentages in the ECOG/ACRIN trial were 30% and 70%.

The majority of patients were adherent to the 5-year prescribed course of tamoxifen, Wright said.

 

Analysis Details

In the combined data, the median age of patients who used tamoxifen vs who did not use tamoxifen was 58 vs 61 years.

In all, 23% of women in both the tamoxifen yes or no groups were premenopausal, with the remainder either postmenopausal or of unknown menopausal status.

After a median follow-up of 14.85 years, the rate of 15-year ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) was 19% for patients who did not receive tamoxifen vs 11.4% for those who did. This translated into a hazard ratio for IBR on tamoxifen of 0.52 (P = .001).

Tamoxifen also reduced the risk for invasive recurrence in the same breast, with a 15-year invasive IBR rate of 11.5% in the no tamoxifen group vs 6% in the yes tamoxifen group.

However, as noted before, tamoxifen use was not associated with significant reduction in the risk for noninvasive DCIS recurrence in the same breast, as evidenced by a 15-year DCIS IBR rate of 8.1% without tamoxifen and 5.5% with tamoxifen, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

 

A Surprising Result

One finding from the data that seemed to defy clinical wisdom was that tamoxifen use did not appear to significantly reduce the risk for events in the other breast. The 15-year rate of contralateral breast events was 8.8% in the no-tamoxifen group vs 5.6% in the yes tamoxifen group, a difference that was not statically significant.

“It was surprising that there was so little effect on contralateral disease,” commented Elinor Sawyer, MBBS, PhD, the invited discussant.

“But I think it’s really important, this decrease in ipsilateral invasive recurrence [with tamoxifen] because there are studies such as the Sloane study from the United Kingdom that show that if you develop an invasive recurrence after DCIS, you have a worse survival than those who develop a pure DCIS recurrence,” she said.

At the media briefing held prior to Wright’s presentation, moderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio in Texas, also said that she found it surprising that tamoxifen did not reduce risk for contralateral breast cancer “since every study that we’ve done has shown that.”

“I also found that result a little bit surprising,” Wright agreed.

“I think the main feature that we want to focus on is that this was a group of patients with a very clear inclusion criteria of this good-risk DCIS, and even though the definition of good-risk DCIS included patients with [tumors] up to 2.5 cm in DCIS, we saw that, in reality, the patients enrolled had very small DCIS. So I’m wondering if it’s perhaps that it’s related to the fact that patients that were enrolled in these studies had really low-risk features and perhaps just had a lower risk of contralateral breast events as compared to a broader population of patients with DCIS,” she said.

The analysis by Wright and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Wright reported receiving honoraria from ASTRO and PER. Sawyer disclosed receiving grants/research support from Pfizer, Seagen, and IQIVIA. Kaklamani disclosed serving as a speaker and/or consultant for AstraZeneca, Celldex Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, and Novartis and receiving research support from Eisai.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Second-line treatment with imlunestrant improved progression-free survival compared with standard endocrine monotherapy in patients with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer who had ESR1 mutations, according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.

This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.

Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”

The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.

First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.

Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.

The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.

The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.

Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.

When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.

Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.

The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).

Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.

All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.

A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.

Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.

She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.

“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.

Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.

Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Second-line treatment with imlunestrant improved progression-free survival compared with standard endocrine monotherapy in patients with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer who had ESR1 mutations, according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.

This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.

Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”

The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.

First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.

Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.

The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.

The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.

Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.

When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.

Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.

The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).

Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.

All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.

A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.

Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.

She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.

“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.

Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.

Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Second-line treatment with imlunestrant improved progression-free survival compared with standard endocrine monotherapy in patients with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer who had ESR1 mutations, according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.

This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.

Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”

The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.

First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.

Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.

The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.

The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.

Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.

When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.

Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.

The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).

Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.

All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.

A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.

Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.

She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.

“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.

Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.

Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.