Follicular Lymphoma

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.

At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.

In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.

“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.

Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.

The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.

If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.

“Outstanding” data

A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.

“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.

Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.

“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.

Study details

Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.

In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.

Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.

The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.

There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.

The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.

The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.

There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.

Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.

The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.



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

This article was updated 12/12/21.

An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.

At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.

In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.

“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.

Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.

The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.

If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.

“Outstanding” data

A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.

“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.

Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.

“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.

Study details

Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.

In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.

Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.

The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.

There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.

The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.

The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.

There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.

Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.

The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.



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

This article was updated 12/12/21.

An experimental bi-specific monoclonal antibody known as mosunetuzumab has induced high response rates and long-duration responses as monotherapy for patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 2 expansion study.

At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, 54 of 90 patients (60%) had a complete response, and 18 (20%) had a partial response after treatment with mosunetuzumab, reported L. Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.

In contrast, the complete response rate for historical controls was just 14% (P < .0001), Dr. Budde noted.

“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented.

Budde was speaking at a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), held in a hybrid live/virtual format.

The manufacturer, Genentech, said in a statement that based on these “highly positive results,” it plans to submit the new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future for approval consideration.

If approved, mosunetuzumab has the potential to be a first-in-class CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company added.

“Outstanding” data

A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that he was favorably impressed by the findings.

“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

“I think as a single agent — if it does get approval — it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he said.

Dr. Kahl pointed to a separate phase 1b study, also presented at the meeting, suggesting that the combination of mosunetuzumab and lenalidomide (Revlimid) was safe and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with follicular lymphoma that has relapsed after at least 1 line of therapy.

“I’m very interested to see how mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide pans out in the long run,” he said.

Study details

Mosunetuzumab engages T cells and redirects them to eliminate malignant B cells. It has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf product, Dr. Budde said.

In the single-arm phase 2 expansion trial, Dr. Budde and colleagues enrolled 90 patients with grades 1 to 3a follicular lymphoma whose disease relapsed or was refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, including at least one anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and at least one alkylating agent.

Patients were treated with step-up dosing for the first 21-day cycle to mitigate the cytokine release syndrome. They then received eight cycles if they had a complete response, and 17 cycles if they had a partial response or stable disease after eight cycles.

The primary endpoint was complete response rate by independent review, which was 60%, and the overall response rate (ORR), a secondary efficacy endpoint, was 80%.

There were no significant differences in CR or ORR rates among subgroups according to patient age, number of prior lines of therapy, relapsed or refractory disease to last prior line of therapy, double-refractory disease, or disease progression within 24 months of primary therapy.

The median duration of response among all responders was 22.8 months, with a median time to first response of 1.4 months. The 12- and 18-months event-free rates were 62% and 57%, respectively.

The safety profile was manageable, Dr. Budde said, with grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurring in about half of patients, and serious adverse events occurring in a third.

There were two deaths during the study, but neither was judged to be related to mosunetuzumab, and there were only two events leading to drug discontinuation.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 40 patients (44.4%), but only 1 patient each had a grade 3 or 4 CR. The median time to CRS onset was 5.2 hours in cycle 1, and 26.6 hours in subsequent cycles. The median duration of CRS was 3 days. Ten patients had CRS managed with corticosteroids, and seven had it managed with tocilizumab.

Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) events were infrequent, and all were grade 1 or 2 in severity.

The study was supported by Genentech. Dr. Budde disclosed consulting for the company and others. Dr. Kahl has previously disclosed financial considerations with AbbVie.



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

This article was updated 12/12/21.

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pirtobrutinib treatment yielded promising outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other patients with B-cell malignancies who discontinued prior Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK)–inhibitor treatment due to resistance or intolerance, according to the results of the BRUIN trial, a phase 1/2 study.

Pirtobrutinib (formerly known as LOXO-305) is an oral-dose, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, which might address a growing, unmet need for alternative therapies in BTK-inhibitor treatment failure patients, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues. Their report was published in The Lancet.

The study included 109 women (34%) and 214 men (66%), with a median age of 68 years, who were treated with pirtobrutinib. Of these, 203 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (25-300 mg once per day) in the phase 1 portion of the study, and 120 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (200 mg once per day) in phase 2.
 

Promising outcomes

Pirtobrutinib, showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia who were previously treated with a BTK inhibitor. In 121 efficacy-evaluable patients with CLL or SLL treated with a previous covalent BTK inhibitor, the overall response rate with pirtobrutinib was 62% (95% confidence interval, 53-71). The ORR was similar in CLL patients with previous covalent BTK inhibitor resistance (67%), covalent BTK inhibitor intolerance (52%), BTK C481-mutant (71%), and BTK wild-type (66%) disease.

In 52 efficacy-evaluable patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) previously treated with covalent BTK inhibitors, the ORR was 52% (95% CI, 38-66). Of 117 patients with CLL, SLL, or MCL who responded, all but 8 remain progression free to date, the authors stated.

In 19 efficacy-evaluable patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, the ORR was 68%. Among eight patients with follicular lymphoma who were efficacy evaluable, responses were observed in four (50%) patients, and six (75%) of eight efficacy evaluable patients with Richter’s transformation identified before enrollment responded to treatment, the authors stated.

No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, according to the researchers. The recommended phase 2 dose was 200 mg daily. The adverse events, which occurred in at least 10% of 323 patients, were fatigue (20%), diarrhea (17%), and contusion (13%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia (10%). Five patients (1%) discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

In this “first-in-human trial of pirtobrutinib, we showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with B-cell malignancies, including CLL or SLL, MCL, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and follicular lymphoma. Activity was observed in heavily pretreated patients, including patients with resistance and intolerance to previous covalent BTK inhibitor treatment. Global randomized phase 3 studies in CLL or SLL, and MCL are planned,” the researchers concluded.
 

Birth of a third generation?

“The pirtobrutinib study, by opening the way for a third generation of BTK inhibitors, could improve such a personalized molecular approach in the treatment of B-cell malignancies,” according to accompanying editorial comment by Jean-Marie Michot, MD, and Vincent Ribrag, MD, both of the Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

They discussed how BTK inhibitors have been a considerable therapeutic advance in the treatment of NHL-B and CLL and how the three currently approved BTK inhibitors, namely ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, are all covalent and irreversible inhibitors at the protein – the C481 binding site. “Ibrutinib was the first approved drug. The second-generation inhibitors, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, were designed to be more BTK selective,” they added. However, the covalency and irreversibility of the drugs, considered therapeutic strengths, have resulted in induced resistance mutations occurring at the covalent binding, rendering the drugs inactive. “Two advantages of this new drug class are highlighted. First, the selectivity of the drug on BTK appears to be increased,” they wrote. “Second, this class does not bind BTK to the C481 residue, and the efficacy of the drug is therefore not affected by mutations in the BTK binding site.”

Several of the study authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Loxo Oncology (a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly), which sponsored the study, as well as financial relationships with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Dr. Michot and Dr. Ribrag reported that they had no disclosures relevant to the discussion.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Pirtobrutinib treatment yielded promising outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other patients with B-cell malignancies who discontinued prior Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK)–inhibitor treatment due to resistance or intolerance, according to the results of the BRUIN trial, a phase 1/2 study.

Pirtobrutinib (formerly known as LOXO-305) is an oral-dose, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, which might address a growing, unmet need for alternative therapies in BTK-inhibitor treatment failure patients, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues. Their report was published in The Lancet.

The study included 109 women (34%) and 214 men (66%), with a median age of 68 years, who were treated with pirtobrutinib. Of these, 203 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (25-300 mg once per day) in the phase 1 portion of the study, and 120 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (200 mg once per day) in phase 2.
 

Promising outcomes

Pirtobrutinib, showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia who were previously treated with a BTK inhibitor. In 121 efficacy-evaluable patients with CLL or SLL treated with a previous covalent BTK inhibitor, the overall response rate with pirtobrutinib was 62% (95% confidence interval, 53-71). The ORR was similar in CLL patients with previous covalent BTK inhibitor resistance (67%), covalent BTK inhibitor intolerance (52%), BTK C481-mutant (71%), and BTK wild-type (66%) disease.

In 52 efficacy-evaluable patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) previously treated with covalent BTK inhibitors, the ORR was 52% (95% CI, 38-66). Of 117 patients with CLL, SLL, or MCL who responded, all but 8 remain progression free to date, the authors stated.

In 19 efficacy-evaluable patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, the ORR was 68%. Among eight patients with follicular lymphoma who were efficacy evaluable, responses were observed in four (50%) patients, and six (75%) of eight efficacy evaluable patients with Richter’s transformation identified before enrollment responded to treatment, the authors stated.

No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, according to the researchers. The recommended phase 2 dose was 200 mg daily. The adverse events, which occurred in at least 10% of 323 patients, were fatigue (20%), diarrhea (17%), and contusion (13%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia (10%). Five patients (1%) discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

In this “first-in-human trial of pirtobrutinib, we showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with B-cell malignancies, including CLL or SLL, MCL, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and follicular lymphoma. Activity was observed in heavily pretreated patients, including patients with resistance and intolerance to previous covalent BTK inhibitor treatment. Global randomized phase 3 studies in CLL or SLL, and MCL are planned,” the researchers concluded.
 

Birth of a third generation?

“The pirtobrutinib study, by opening the way for a third generation of BTK inhibitors, could improve such a personalized molecular approach in the treatment of B-cell malignancies,” according to accompanying editorial comment by Jean-Marie Michot, MD, and Vincent Ribrag, MD, both of the Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

They discussed how BTK inhibitors have been a considerable therapeutic advance in the treatment of NHL-B and CLL and how the three currently approved BTK inhibitors, namely ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, are all covalent and irreversible inhibitors at the protein – the C481 binding site. “Ibrutinib was the first approved drug. The second-generation inhibitors, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, were designed to be more BTK selective,” they added. However, the covalency and irreversibility of the drugs, considered therapeutic strengths, have resulted in induced resistance mutations occurring at the covalent binding, rendering the drugs inactive. “Two advantages of this new drug class are highlighted. First, the selectivity of the drug on BTK appears to be increased,” they wrote. “Second, this class does not bind BTK to the C481 residue, and the efficacy of the drug is therefore not affected by mutations in the BTK binding site.”

Several of the study authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Loxo Oncology (a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly), which sponsored the study, as well as financial relationships with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Dr. Michot and Dr. Ribrag reported that they had no disclosures relevant to the discussion.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Pirtobrutinib treatment yielded promising outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other patients with B-cell malignancies who discontinued prior Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK)–inhibitor treatment due to resistance or intolerance, according to the results of the BRUIN trial, a phase 1/2 study.

Pirtobrutinib (formerly known as LOXO-305) is an oral-dose, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, which might address a growing, unmet need for alternative therapies in BTK-inhibitor treatment failure patients, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues. Their report was published in The Lancet.

The study included 109 women (34%) and 214 men (66%), with a median age of 68 years, who were treated with pirtobrutinib. Of these, 203 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (25-300 mg once per day) in the phase 1 portion of the study, and 120 patients were assigned to pirtobrutinib (200 mg once per day) in phase 2.
 

Promising outcomes

Pirtobrutinib, showed promising efficacy and tolerable safety in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia who were previously treated with a BTK inhibitor. In 121 efficacy-evaluable patients with CLL or SLL treated with a previous covalent BTK inhibitor, the overall response rate with pirtobrutinib was 62% (95% confidence interval, 53-71). The ORR was similar in CLL patients with previous covalent BTK inhibitor resistance (67%), covalent BTK inhibitor intolerance (52%), BTK C481-mutant (71%), and BTK wild-type (66%) disease.

In 52 efficacy-evaluable patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) previously treated with covalent BTK inhibitors, the ORR was 52% (95% CI, 38-66). Of 117 patients with CLL, SLL, or MCL who responded, all but 8 remain progression free to date, the authors stated.

In 19 efficacy-evaluable patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, the ORR was 68%. Among eight patients with follicular lymphoma who were efficacy evaluable, responses were observed in four (50%) patients, and six (75%) of eight efficacy evaluable patients with Richter’s transformation identified before enrollment responded to treatment, the authors stated.

No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, according to the researchers. The recommended phase 2 dose was 200 mg daily. The adverse events, which occurred in at least 10% of 323 patients, were fatigue (20%), diarrhea (17%), and contusion (13%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia (10%). Five patients (1%) discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

In this “first-in-human trial of pirtobrutinib, we showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with B-cell malignancies, including CLL or SLL, MCL, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and follicular lymphoma. Activity was observed in heavily pretreated patients, including patients with resistance and intolerance to previous covalent BTK inhibitor treatment. Global randomized phase 3 studies in CLL or SLL, and MCL are planned,” the researchers concluded.
 

Birth of a third generation?

“The pirtobrutinib study, by opening the way for a third generation of BTK inhibitors, could improve such a personalized molecular approach in the treatment of B-cell malignancies,” according to accompanying editorial comment by Jean-Marie Michot, MD, and Vincent Ribrag, MD, both of the Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

They discussed how BTK inhibitors have been a considerable therapeutic advance in the treatment of NHL-B and CLL and how the three currently approved BTK inhibitors, namely ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, are all covalent and irreversible inhibitors at the protein – the C481 binding site. “Ibrutinib was the first approved drug. The second-generation inhibitors, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, were designed to be more BTK selective,” they added. However, the covalency and irreversibility of the drugs, considered therapeutic strengths, have resulted in induced resistance mutations occurring at the covalent binding, rendering the drugs inactive. “Two advantages of this new drug class are highlighted. First, the selectivity of the drug on BTK appears to be increased,” they wrote. “Second, this class does not bind BTK to the C481 residue, and the efficacy of the drug is therefore not affected by mutations in the BTK binding site.”

Several of the study authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Loxo Oncology (a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly), which sponsored the study, as well as financial relationships with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Dr. Michot and Dr. Ribrag reported that they had no disclosures relevant to the discussion.

mlesney@mdedge.com

A novel quantitative assay used with flow cytometry helps to precisely measure chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion to predict patient outcomes after CAR T-cell infusion, according to researchers at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumorion in Milan.

Higher frequencies of CAR-positive T cells at day 9 after infusion, as measured using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay, accurately distinguished responders from nonresponders, Paolo Corradini, MD, said at the 3rd European CAR T-cell Meeting.

The findings, first presented in December at the American Society of Hematology annual conference, suggest the assay could improve treatment decision-making, Dr. Corradini of the University of Milan said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association

He and his colleagues prospectively collected samples from 16 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 5 with transformed follicular lymphoma, and 7 with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who were treated with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; Yescarta) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cal; Kymriah) between November 2019 and July 2020. CAR T cells were monitored using flow cytometry.

Pivotal trial data and subsequent findings with respect to tisa-cel and axi-cel have demonstrated that CAR T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion have a crucial impact on disease response and toxicity: a cut-off value of CAR+ cells at day 9 greater than 24.5/microliters distinguished responders from nonresponders with a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 81%, Dr. Corradini noted.

“But we have also devised a methodology by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) recently that correlates perfectly with the flow cytometry data,” he said, adding that the assay is “easy and allowed precise enumeration of the CAR T cells in the blood of the patient.”

The R square (coefficient of determination) for ddPCR and flow cytometry was 0.9995 and 0.9997 for tisa-cel and axi-cel, respectively (P < .0001 for each). This is particularly useful for assessing whether low CAR T-cell levels on flow cytometry are background signals resulting from nonspecific binding of the antibodies or true low levels, and the findings therefore have implications for improving clinical decision-making and outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy recipients, he said.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A novel quantitative assay used with flow cytometry helps to precisely measure chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion to predict patient outcomes after CAR T-cell infusion, according to researchers at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumorion in Milan.

Higher frequencies of CAR-positive T cells at day 9 after infusion, as measured using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay, accurately distinguished responders from nonresponders, Paolo Corradini, MD, said at the 3rd European CAR T-cell Meeting.

The findings, first presented in December at the American Society of Hematology annual conference, suggest the assay could improve treatment decision-making, Dr. Corradini of the University of Milan said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association

He and his colleagues prospectively collected samples from 16 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 5 with transformed follicular lymphoma, and 7 with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who were treated with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; Yescarta) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cal; Kymriah) between November 2019 and July 2020. CAR T cells were monitored using flow cytometry.

Pivotal trial data and subsequent findings with respect to tisa-cel and axi-cel have demonstrated that CAR T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion have a crucial impact on disease response and toxicity: a cut-off value of CAR+ cells at day 9 greater than 24.5/microliters distinguished responders from nonresponders with a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 81%, Dr. Corradini noted.

“But we have also devised a methodology by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) recently that correlates perfectly with the flow cytometry data,” he said, adding that the assay is “easy and allowed precise enumeration of the CAR T cells in the blood of the patient.”

The R square (coefficient of determination) for ddPCR and flow cytometry was 0.9995 and 0.9997 for tisa-cel and axi-cel, respectively (P < .0001 for each). This is particularly useful for assessing whether low CAR T-cell levels on flow cytometry are background signals resulting from nonspecific binding of the antibodies or true low levels, and the findings therefore have implications for improving clinical decision-making and outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy recipients, he said.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A novel quantitative assay used with flow cytometry helps to precisely measure chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion to predict patient outcomes after CAR T-cell infusion, according to researchers at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumorion in Milan.

Higher frequencies of CAR-positive T cells at day 9 after infusion, as measured using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay, accurately distinguished responders from nonresponders, Paolo Corradini, MD, said at the 3rd European CAR T-cell Meeting.

The findings, first presented in December at the American Society of Hematology annual conference, suggest the assay could improve treatment decision-making, Dr. Corradini of the University of Milan said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association

He and his colleagues prospectively collected samples from 16 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 5 with transformed follicular lymphoma, and 7 with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who were treated with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; Yescarta) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cal; Kymriah) between November 2019 and July 2020. CAR T cells were monitored using flow cytometry.

Pivotal trial data and subsequent findings with respect to tisa-cel and axi-cel have demonstrated that CAR T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion have a crucial impact on disease response and toxicity: a cut-off value of CAR+ cells at day 9 greater than 24.5/microliters distinguished responders from nonresponders with a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 81%, Dr. Corradini noted.

“But we have also devised a methodology by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) recently that correlates perfectly with the flow cytometry data,” he said, adding that the assay is “easy and allowed precise enumeration of the CAR T cells in the blood of the patient.”

The R square (coefficient of determination) for ddPCR and flow cytometry was 0.9995 and 0.9997 for tisa-cel and axi-cel, respectively (P < .0001 for each). This is particularly useful for assessing whether low CAR T-cell levels on flow cytometry are background signals resulting from nonspecific binding of the antibodies or true low levels, and the findings therefore have implications for improving clinical decision-making and outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy recipients, he said.

sworcester@mdedge.com

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval of the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat (Tazverik, Epizyme, Inc) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in adult patients with tumors harboring an EZH2 mutation.

Eligible patients must have already received at least two prior systemic therapies and have tumors that are positive for an EZH2 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The FDA has also approved the cobas EZH2 Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc) as a companion diagnostic test for tazemetostat.

The new indication is also for adult patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma who have no other satisfactory alternative treatment options.

“In our view, there remains no clear standard of care in the relapsed and/or refractory [follicular lymphoma] population, as not all patients benefit from today’s available therapies,” said Shefali Agarwal, MD, chief medical officer of Epizyme, in a company press release. “Based on this label, physicians will have the ability to use their clinical discretion to prescribe tazemetostat for their relapsed or refractory patients regardless of EZH2 mutational status and without regard to a specific line of treatment where other options are not satisfactory.”

This accelerated approval is based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for these indications may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the FDA notes.

Tazemetostat acts as an inhibitor of EZH2 methyltransferase. Earlier this year, the drug was approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma in cases in which complete resection is not possible. It is the first drug with this mechanism of action and is the first to be indicated for epithelioid sarcoma.

Promising Efficacy in Phase 2 Trial

The new approval for use in follicular lymphoma was based on results from an open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 clinical trial involving patients who had experienced disease progression after being treated with at least two prior systemic regimens. The cohort was divided into two treatment groups: One group consisted of 45 patients with EZH2-activating mutations, the other included 54 patients with wild-type EZH2.

All patients received tazemetostat at 800 mg administered orally twice a day. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate and duration of response, in accordance with International Working Group Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma criteria.

The median duration of follow-up was 22 months for patients with EZH2-activating mutations and 36 months for those with wild-type tumors.

Among the 45 patients with an EZH2-activating mutation, the median number of lines of prior systemic therapy was 2.0 (range, 1 – 11). In 49% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 49%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate was 69%; 12% of patients achieved a complete response, and 57% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 10.9 months and ongoing.

In the cohort of 54 patients with wild-type EZH2, the median number previous therapies was 3.0 (range, 1 – 8); in 59% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 41%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate to tazemetostat treatment was 34%; 4% of patients achieved a complete response, and 30% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 13 months.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients. The most common were fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, and abdominal pain. Eight patients (8%) discontinued treatment during the trial because of adverse events. There were no reported deaths. No black box warnings have been published, and there are no contraindications.

“The durable responses observed with this drug are notable in the context of the safety profile and route of oral, at-home administration, and will offer an important new option for physicians as we care for patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma,” said John Leonard, MD, in a company press release. He is associate dean for clinical research and Richard T. Silver Distinguished Professor of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and an investigator in the ongoing phase 1b/3 confirmatory trial for tazemetostat.

“Follicular lymphoma remains an incurable disease, and even with the availability of new drugs in recent years, there have remained important unmet needs in the treatment of follicular lymphoma,” he commented.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval of the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat (Tazverik, Epizyme, Inc) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in adult patients with tumors harboring an EZH2 mutation.

Eligible patients must have already received at least two prior systemic therapies and have tumors that are positive for an EZH2 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The FDA has also approved the cobas EZH2 Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc) as a companion diagnostic test for tazemetostat.

The new indication is also for adult patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma who have no other satisfactory alternative treatment options.

“In our view, there remains no clear standard of care in the relapsed and/or refractory [follicular lymphoma] population, as not all patients benefit from today’s available therapies,” said Shefali Agarwal, MD, chief medical officer of Epizyme, in a company press release. “Based on this label, physicians will have the ability to use their clinical discretion to prescribe tazemetostat for their relapsed or refractory patients regardless of EZH2 mutational status and without regard to a specific line of treatment where other options are not satisfactory.”

This accelerated approval is based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for these indications may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the FDA notes.

Tazemetostat acts as an inhibitor of EZH2 methyltransferase. Earlier this year, the drug was approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma in cases in which complete resection is not possible. It is the first drug with this mechanism of action and is the first to be indicated for epithelioid sarcoma.

Promising Efficacy in Phase 2 Trial

The new approval for use in follicular lymphoma was based on results from an open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 clinical trial involving patients who had experienced disease progression after being treated with at least two prior systemic regimens. The cohort was divided into two treatment groups: One group consisted of 45 patients with EZH2-activating mutations, the other included 54 patients with wild-type EZH2.

All patients received tazemetostat at 800 mg administered orally twice a day. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate and duration of response, in accordance with International Working Group Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma criteria.

The median duration of follow-up was 22 months for patients with EZH2-activating mutations and 36 months for those with wild-type tumors.

Among the 45 patients with an EZH2-activating mutation, the median number of lines of prior systemic therapy was 2.0 (range, 1 – 11). In 49% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 49%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate was 69%; 12% of patients achieved a complete response, and 57% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 10.9 months and ongoing.

In the cohort of 54 patients with wild-type EZH2, the median number previous therapies was 3.0 (range, 1 – 8); in 59% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 41%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate to tazemetostat treatment was 34%; 4% of patients achieved a complete response, and 30% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 13 months.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients. The most common were fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, and abdominal pain. Eight patients (8%) discontinued treatment during the trial because of adverse events. There were no reported deaths. No black box warnings have been published, and there are no contraindications.

“The durable responses observed with this drug are notable in the context of the safety profile and route of oral, at-home administration, and will offer an important new option for physicians as we care for patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma,” said John Leonard, MD, in a company press release. He is associate dean for clinical research and Richard T. Silver Distinguished Professor of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and an investigator in the ongoing phase 1b/3 confirmatory trial for tazemetostat.

“Follicular lymphoma remains an incurable disease, and even with the availability of new drugs in recent years, there have remained important unmet needs in the treatment of follicular lymphoma,” he commented.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval of the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat (Tazverik, Epizyme, Inc) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in adult patients with tumors harboring an EZH2 mutation.

Eligible patients must have already received at least two prior systemic therapies and have tumors that are positive for an EZH2 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The FDA has also approved the cobas EZH2 Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc) as a companion diagnostic test for tazemetostat.

The new indication is also for adult patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma who have no other satisfactory alternative treatment options.

“In our view, there remains no clear standard of care in the relapsed and/or refractory [follicular lymphoma] population, as not all patients benefit from today’s available therapies,” said Shefali Agarwal, MD, chief medical officer of Epizyme, in a company press release. “Based on this label, physicians will have the ability to use their clinical discretion to prescribe tazemetostat for their relapsed or refractory patients regardless of EZH2 mutational status and without regard to a specific line of treatment where other options are not satisfactory.”

This accelerated approval is based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for these indications may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the FDA notes.

Tazemetostat acts as an inhibitor of EZH2 methyltransferase. Earlier this year, the drug was approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma in cases in which complete resection is not possible. It is the first drug with this mechanism of action and is the first to be indicated for epithelioid sarcoma.

Promising Efficacy in Phase 2 Trial

The new approval for use in follicular lymphoma was based on results from an open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 clinical trial involving patients who had experienced disease progression after being treated with at least two prior systemic regimens. The cohort was divided into two treatment groups: One group consisted of 45 patients with EZH2-activating mutations, the other included 54 patients with wild-type EZH2.

All patients received tazemetostat at 800 mg administered orally twice a day. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate and duration of response, in accordance with International Working Group Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma criteria.

The median duration of follow-up was 22 months for patients with EZH2-activating mutations and 36 months for those with wild-type tumors.

Among the 45 patients with an EZH2-activating mutation, the median number of lines of prior systemic therapy was 2.0 (range, 1 – 11). In 49% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 49%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate was 69%; 12% of patients achieved a complete response, and 57% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 10.9 months and ongoing.

In the cohort of 54 patients with wild-type EZH2, the median number previous therapies was 3.0 (range, 1 – 8); in 59% of patients, disease was refractory to rituximab, and in 41%, it was refractory to the patient’s last therapy.

The overall response rate to tazemetostat treatment was 34%; 4% of patients achieved a complete response, and 30% achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 13 months.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 30% of patients. The most common were fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, and abdominal pain. Eight patients (8%) discontinued treatment during the trial because of adverse events. There were no reported deaths. No black box warnings have been published, and there are no contraindications.

“The durable responses observed with this drug are notable in the context of the safety profile and route of oral, at-home administration, and will offer an important new option for physicians as we care for patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma,” said John Leonard, MD, in a company press release. He is associate dean for clinical research and Richard T. Silver Distinguished Professor of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and an investigator in the ongoing phase 1b/3 confirmatory trial for tazemetostat.

“Follicular lymphoma remains an incurable disease, and even with the availability of new drugs in recent years, there have remained important unmet needs in the treatment of follicular lymphoma,” he commented.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.