Adverse Effects

Biomarkers

Brain Cancer

HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Breast Cancer

Colorectal Cancer

Esophageal Cancer

Gastric Cancer

Liver Cancer

Pancreatic Cancer

Gastrointestinal Cancer

Bladder Cancer

Kidney Cancer

Prostate Cancer

Genitourinary Cancers

Cervical Cancer

Endometrial Cancer

Ovarian Cancer

Gynecologic Cancers

Head & Neck Cancer

Multiple Myeloma

Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Hematologic Oncology

Hormone-related Cancers

Immunotherapy

Vaccines

Infection

Leukemia

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC)

Lung Cancer

Lymphoma

Melanoma

Mesothelioma

Neuroendocrine Tumors

Oncology

Pediatric Cancers

Radiation Oncology

Sarcoma

Screening

Skin Cancer & Melanoma

Surgery

Thyroid Cancer

News

Clinical Topics

Global Bulletin

All News

Approval Alert

Media

2 Minute Drill

Around the Practice

Between the Lines

Breaking Barriers

Face Off

Morning Rounds

OncView

Podcasts

Readout 360

Training Academy

Treatment Algorithms with the Oncology Brothers

Conferences

Publications

All Journals

Editorial Board

For Authors

Events

Frontline Forum

Satellite Sessions

CME/CE

Resources

Contemporary Concepts

Awareness Month

Interactive Tools

Nurse Practitioners/Physician's Assistants

Partners

Career Center

Subscribe

Home to the journal Oncology, Cancer Network provides research and opinion on the screening, early detection, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of cancers.

About

Advertise

CureToday.com

OncLive.com

OncNursingNews.com

TargetedOnc.com

Contact

Terms and Conditions

Privacy

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Cancer Network

Facebook

LinkedIn

Twitter

Spotlight

Around the Practice 

Journal

Insights from Experts at Mayo Clinic on Translating Evidence to Clinical Practice

Optimizing Outcomes in Patients with HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer

Clinical

Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Genitourinary Cancer

Gynecologic Cancer

Hematology

Skin Cancer

1rem

Authors

4 Bacopaside: Exploring Its Potential in Addressing Chemoresistance and Modulating Doxorubicin Accumulation in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells

Although the 70-Gene MammaPrint (MP) assay was not confirmed to be predictive of distant recurrence (DR) in patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, early-stage breast cancer, the assay predicted responses to extended letrozole (Femara) therapy (ELT) and identified subsets of patients with low-risk disease who experienced improved outcomes with ELT. These findings from the phase 3 NSABP B-42 study (NCT00382070) were published in the 

Data showed no statistically significant difference in ELT on DR between tumors classified as MP high risk (MP-HR) or low risk (MP-LR; 

 = .38). A statistically significant 10-year benefit of 3.7% was found for DR in MP-LR tumors, (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.74, 

.002) but a nonsignificant 2.4% benefit was observed for DR with MP-HR tumors (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.34-1.24; 

Compared with the overall population of the B-42 trial (n = 3903), a significantly improved prognosis for DR was noted among those in the translational MP cohort (n = 1866; 

.036). The study authors noted that the relatively low incidence of DR events—especially among tumors classified as ultralow-risk (MP-UL)—limited the study's power to assess this end point and detect significant differences in outcomes following ELT across subgroups.

There was a significant 10-year ELT benefit for disease-free survival (DFS) and breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) for MP-LR tumors not observed in those with MP-HR disease; the interaction between MP and ELT benefit reached statistical significance for these end points (DFS: interaction 

At 10 years, ELT benefit for DR was not statically significant for MP-UL tumors (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.13-2.15; 

 = .37), although a significant effect occurred in low-non-ultralow risk (MP-LNUL) tumors (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77; 

 = .003). This difference was not statistically significant (interaction 

 = .89). At 10 years, the DR rate was 4.0%, the DFS rate was 9.5%, and the BCFI rate was 7.9% among those with MP-LNUL tumors. These benefits in the MP-LNUL subgroup were significant and more pronounced compared with those for patients with MP-UL tumors, where the respective 10-year rates were 3%, 1.8%, and 4.1%.

“Overall, these findings may expand the clinical utility of MP beyond prognostic indication because they provide the first evidence suggesting that MP is predictive of [extended endocrine therapy] benefit,” wrote Priya Rastogi, MD, vice-chair for medical affairs at the National Surgical Breast and Bowel Project and medical oncologist at the Magee-Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, with study coinvestigators in the publication.

 “Future analyses incorporating clinicopathologic characteristics could also further optimize patient selection.”

Included in the prospective-retrospective correlative study were eligible patients with clinical follow-up and available untreated primary tumor tissue. Developers in Irvine, California received tumor blocks, and MP test scores were generated and blinded to clinical outcome. These test results were included in the final clinical data set.

Of patients randomly assigned to letrozole or placebo in the B-42 trial (n = 3966), blocks were available for 2338 patients, with a final translational MP cohort consisting of 1866.

The primary end point of the correlative study assessing the predictive abilities of MP was DR. Secondary end points in this analysis included DFS and BCFI. In the original NSABP-B42 trial, the primary end point was DFS.

The median follow-up time for patients included in the MP cohort was 10.4 years. In total, 706 (37.8%) and 1160 (62.2%) patients were MP-HR or MP-LR, with those in the MP-LR group further disaggregated into MP-UL (n = 252, 13.5%) and low-non-ultralow risk (MP-LNUL, n = 908, 48.7%) subtypes.

There were 102 DR and 457 DFS events observed in the translational cohort. A statistically significant ELT benefit for DFS was observed in the MP-LR group (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.85; 

< .001) but not in the MP-HR group (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82-1.47; 

 = .55). Furthermore, a 7.8% improvement was observed in patients undergoing ELT for MP-LR tumors vs placebo, contrasting with a –1.6% difference reported in patients undergoing ELT for MP-HR tumors compared with placebo.

In BCFI, the assumption of hazards proportionality was not satisfied between treatment groups for the MP-HR subgroup; a change point of 5.2 years identified a distinguishable statistically significant difference in ELT effect between MP-HR (HR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.28-5.99; 

= .01) and MP-LR (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; 

< .001) subgroups. Prior to 5.2 years, ELT benefit was similar between MP-HR and MP-LR subgroups.

Rastogi P, Bandos H, Lucas PC, et al. Utility of the 70-Gene MammaPrint assay for prediction of benefit from extended letrozole therapy in the NRG Oncology/NSABP B-42 trial. 

 Published online July 24, 2024. doi:10.1200/JCO.23.01995

Letrozole in treating postmenopausal women who have received hormone therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed August 14, 2024. https://tinyurl.com/2dhreevh

NSABP B-42 trial results show that the assay was predictive of extended letrozole therapy response, identifying a patient subset with improved outcomes.

Gene Assay May Predict Extended Letrozole Benefits in Breast Cancer Subsets

An overall survival benefit was observed when patients with resectable esophageal cancer were given perioperative chemotherapy with docetaxel, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil (FLOT) vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CROSS), according to results from the phase 3 ESOPEC trial (NCT02509286) presented during the 

2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting

At a median follow-up of 55 months, patients in the intention-to-treat population who received the FLOT protocol (n = 221) achieved a median OS of 66 months (95% CI, 36-not evaluable [NE]) compared with 37 months (95% CI, 28-43) among those who were treated with the CROSS protocol (n = 217; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.92; 

 = .012). The 3-year OS rates were 57.4% vs 50.7%, respectively, and the 5-year OS rates were 50.6% vs 38.7%, respectively.

Additionally, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 38 months (95% CI, 21-NE) in the FLOT arm compared with 16 months (95% CI, 12-22) in the CROSS arm (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.85; 

 = .001). The 3-year PFS rates were 51.6% vs 35.0%, respectively, and the 5-year PFS rates were 44.4% vs 30.9%, respectively.

“Many patients in the US and Europe are still treated with the CROSS radiochemotherapy protocol. Our study shows that patients with resectable esophageal cancer should have FLOT chemotherapy before and after the operation in order to optimize the chance of curing their tumors in the long term,” Jens Hoeppner, FAChirg, FACS, MD, the director of the Department of Surgery at University Medical Center, University of Bielefeld, in Detmold, Germany, stated in a press release.

ESOPEC was a prospective multicenter study that enrolled patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma across 25 sites in Germany between February 2016 and April 2020. Eligible patients needed to be at least 18 years old, have received no prior abdominal or thoracic radiotherapy, have an ECOG performance status of 2 or less, and have adequate organ function. Patients were also required to have pretreatment stage cT1N+, M0 or cT2-4a, N0/+, M0 disease. The presence of squamous or other non-adenocarcinoma histology, gastric cancer, clinical stage cT1cN0 and cT4b disease, or metastatic disease excluded patients from enrollment.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either the FLOT or CROSS protocol. Those in the FLOT arm received repeated doses of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel every 2 weeks over 4 neoadjuvant cycles prior to surgery and 4 adjuvant cycles after surgery. In the CROSS arm, patients received neoadjuvant radiation therapy and concurrent chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel for 5 cycles in 5 weeks prior to surgery. Following neoadjuvant treatment, patients in both arms waited 4 to 6 weeks before proceeding to surgery.

The primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included PFS, recurrence-free survival, postoperative pathological stage, postoperative complications, and postsurgical quality of life.

At baseline, the mean age of patients in the FLOT and CROSS arms was 63.1 years (standard deviation [SD], 8.6) vs 62.6 years (SD, 9.8), respectively. Most patients in both arms were male (89.1% vs 89.4%), had clinical T-stage cT3-4 disease (79.1% vs 81.9%), and had clinical N-stage cN+ disease (77.8% vs 81.6%). Overall, 191 patients in the FLOT arm underwent surgery compared with 180 patients in the CROSS arm.

Additional findings from ESOPEC showed that the pathological complete remission rates among patients who underwent surgery in the FLOT arm was 16.8% compared with 10.0% in the CROSS arm. In both arms, complete regression (18.3% vs 13.3%) or near complete regression (25.1% vs 39.4%) was observed. Most patients across both arms underwent an R0 resection (94.2% vs 95.0%).

Patients in the predefined protocol population in the FLOT (n = 207) and CROSS (n = 196) arms achieved a median OS of 66 months (95% CI, 38-NE) vs 39 months (95% CI, 29-45), respectively (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96; 

 = .023). The 3-year OS rates were 58.1% vs 52.6%, respectively, and the 5-year OS rates were 51.8% vs 40.5%, respectively.

Results from an exploratory subgroup analysis demonstrated that the OS benefit in favor of FLOT vs CROSS was observed in all subgroups examined. The most pronounced benefit was reported in patients aged less than 60 years (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.95) and those with clinical T-stage T3-4 disease (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.92).

Most patients in both the FLOT and CROSS arms started neoadjuvant treatment; these patients comprised the predefined protocol population. A majority of patients in both arms completed neoadjuvant treatment (87.3% vs 67.7%) and received neoadjuvant treatment plus surgery (86.0% vs 82.9%). In the FLOT arm, 63.3% of patients received adjuvant treatment and 52.5% completed adjuvant treatment.

In the 90 days post-surgery, 3.2% of patients in the FLOT arm died compared with 5.6% in the CROSS arm. The 30-day postoperative mortality rates were 1.0% vs 1.7%, respectively At the data cutoff, 97 and 121 patients died in these respective arms.

“Perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT plus surgery improves OS compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation with CROSS plus surgery in patients with locally advanced, resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma. ESOPEC found that perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT should be preferred over neoadjuvant chemoradiation with the CROSS protocol for improving survival in resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma,” Hoeppner concluded in an oral presentation.

Hoeppner J, Brunner T, Lordick F, et al. Prospective randomized multicenter phase III trial comparing perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT protocol) to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CROSS protocol) in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (ESOPEC trial).

. 2024;42(suppl 17):LBA1. doi:10.1200/JCO.2024.42.17_suppl.LBA1

Chemotherapy before and after surgery may be new standard treatment for some patients with esophageal cancer. News Release. ASCO. June 2, 2024. Accessed June 2, 2024. https://society.asco.org/about-asco/press-center/news-releases/chemotherapy-and-after-surgery-may-be-new-standard-treatment

Perioperative chemotherapy compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (ESOPEC). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated May 8, 2024. Accessed June 1, 2024. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02509286

study was published on June 2, 2024, from the press briefing, and was updated on June 4, 2024, with additional information/data from the oral session.

The combination of perioperative chemotherapy plus FLOT improved overall survival vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. 


Conference

OS Prolonged With Perioperative Chemo Vs Neoadjuvant CRT in Esophageal Cancer 

The FDA has accepted a biologics license application (BLA) for a subcutaneous formulation including nivolumab (Opdivo) and hyaluronidase (rHuPH20) for adult patients with solid tumors for which standard intravenous nivolumab has already received approval, according to a press release from the developers, Bristol Myers Squibb.

If approved, patients would be eligible to receive subcutaneous nivolumab as monotherapy, monotherapy maintenance after receiving prior nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), or as part of a combination regimen including chemotherapy or cabozantinib (Cabometyx). The regulatory agency has set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act date of February 28, 2025, for its decision on approving the subcutaneous formulation of the agent.

(Editor's Note: As of May 21, 2024, the FDA updated the Prescription Drug User Fee Act date for subcutaneous nivolumab to December 29, 2024.)

“We believe subcutaneous nivolumab has the potential to make a significant difference in the lives of patients, which is reinforced by the FDA’s acceptance of our application,” Gina Fusaro, PhD, vice president and global program lead at Bristol Myers Squibb, said in the press release.

“[Nivolumab] is a foundational PD-1 inhibitor approved for many different types of cancer, and our continued investment in research that puts patients first remains a priority. If approved by the FDA, the subcutaneous administration of nivolumab would provide patients and their physicians with a new option that delivers the same well-known benefits as [intravenous nivolumab] but with the improved convenience of an injection administered in 3-to-5 minutes rather than a 30-to-60-minute infusion.”

Supporting findings for the BLA came from the 

phase 3 CheckMate-67T trial (NCT04810078),

 in which investigators compared treatment with intravenous vs subcutaneous nivolumab in previously treated patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Updated findings from the CheckMate-67T trial were presented at the 

In the CheckMate-67T trial, 495 patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous (n = 248) or intravenous (n = 247) nivolumab. ORR was a key secondary end point of the trial.

Regarding the coprimary end point of time-averaged nivolumab serum concentration over 28 days (Cavgd28), treatment with subcutaneous nivolumab demonstrated noninferiority compared with the intravenous formulation with a geometric mean ratio of 2.098 (90% CI, 2.001-2.200).

 Additionally, the subcutaneous formulation exhibited noninferiority with respect to the coprimary end point of trough serum concentration at steady state (Cminss) with a geometric mean ratio of 1.774 (90% CI, 1.633-1.927).

The objective response rate (ORR) was 24.2% with subcutaneous nivolumab vs 18.2% with the intravenous formulation (relative risk, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.94-1.87). Additionally, the median progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review was 7.23 months vs 5.65 months, respectively.

Grade 3/4 adverse effects (AEs) occurred in 35.2% of patients in the subcutaneous arm vs 40.8% of those in the intravenous arm. Additionally, 9.7% and 14.7% of patients in each respective arm had treatment-related AEs, 21.1% and 22.9% had serious AEs, and 6.5% and 6.5% experienced treatment-related serious AEs.

Investigators concluded that the safety profile of subcutaneous nivolumab was comparable with prior reports of the intravenous formulation.

“The data from CheckMate-67T with the subcutaneous formulation of nivolumab co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase represent a groundbreaking advancement in oncology research for physicians and our patients,” Saby George, MD, FACP, a professor of Oncology and Medicine and the director of Network Clinical Trials in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center said in a press release about these data.

“Having the option to administer immunotherapy subcutaneously could undoubtedly reduce the treatment burden that patients diagnosed with cancer currently [have], as well as help maximize efficiencies within healthcare systems. As it stands, intravenous immunotherapy infusion can take precious time, which we know is an important commodity for patients and the doctors who treat them. That’s why these results indicating noninferiority with subcutaneous nivolumab have the potential to be practice-changing and to improve patients’ treatment experience with one injection that can be given in under five minutes and, in some cases, outside of the infusion center,” George concluded.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepts Bristol Myers Squibb’s application for subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluronidase). News release. Bristol Myers Squibb. May 6, 2024. Accessed May 6, 2024. https://bit.ly/3JL8yY1

Bristol Myers Squibb announces updated action date by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluronidase). News release. Bristol Myers Squibb. May 21, 2024. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://tinyurl.com/3emkwdk2

Subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluronidase) shows noninferiority compared to intravenous Opdivo (nivolumab) in advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma in CheckMate -67T trial. News release. Bristol Myers Squibb. January 27, 2024. Accessed May 6, 2024. https://bit.ly/4dvCMvQ

Data from the CheckMate-67T trial support the biologics license application for subcutaneous nivolumab in multiple solid tumors.

FDA Accepts BLA for Subcutaneous Nivolumab in Solid Tumor Indications

Finding ways to improve quality of life outcomes is always a goal for oncologists. Those in the emerging field of cancer rehabilitation medicine have the opportunity to bridge a gap in oncology care.

Jessica Cheng, MD, described cancer rehabilitation as a strategy to improve function, whether that involves doing day-to-day activities or overcoming an unexpected challenge. She noted that finding solutions to these issues brings her joy.

Cheng, assistant clinical professor in the Department of Supportive Care Medicine at City of Hope, highlighted that cancer rehabilitation medicine is a subspecialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) and is a viable option for any patients who need to increase their strength or are experiencing toxicity-related events from treatment.

, Cheng discussed the importance of PM&R and cancer rehabilitation, those who may benefit from it, and how she hopes to spread the word regarding this up-and-coming field.

“My heart’s desire is that every institution that takes care of patients with cancer will recognize the importance of optimizing function and performance status from the beginning and throughout the cancer journey from prehabilitation to rehabilitation,” said Cheng.

CancerNetwork: What is cancer rehabilitation medicine?

: A lot of times when [patients have] cancer, they have thoughts like, “Will I be able to go back to work? Can I go to my son’s wedding? Can I keep golfing? My back hurts; it’s hard to get off a chair. How am I going to get through this?” What I do in my practice in cancer rehabilitation medicine is I then ask a lot more questions about where these thoughts are coming from. I do an extensive physical exam, and I come up with a comprehensive, tailored, practical, and coordinated plan that aims to give the patient a measure of control over their life; to live their life to the fullest no matter where they are in their cancer journey.

A key part of being able to function and do the activities that they want to do is exercise. There can be a lot of barriers to exercise. It could be that back pain, fatigue related to cancer, neuropathy, or [something that makes them say] “Why do I have to do that?” I seek to answer all those questions with my patients. That’s one example of what a visit might look like. The part that I’m passionate about is cancer prehabilitation, and that’s preparing for surgery, stem cell transplant, or whichever cancer treatment is coming up next. I had a patient who recently followed up with me after prehabilitation, and she followed everything I said in terms of exercise, nutrition, mental health, etc. [She said she] got out of the hospital faster, and she recovered much faster than she thought. The oncologist confirmed that was a quicker recovery than expected. That brings me joy.

How does PM&R relate to cancer rehabilitation medicine?

: It is not well known in the cancer space. This is my core specialty, and I sub-specialize in cancer rehabilitation medicine. [PM&R] often gets confused with physical therapy vs physical medicine, or psychiatry vs physiatry. These are all important collaborators, but [PM&R] is not exactly those specialties either. PM&R is the only medical specialty that focuses on function. That’s the keyword of everything I do: function.

Function is our ability to do things we care about, whether it’s high level like sports or someone’s job, or if it’s getting off the toilet. Those are all activities that people do day-to-day. The body systems of focus are the musculoskeletal system, or muscle, bone joints; and the nervous system, like the brain, spinal cord, and the nerves throughout the body, as those are the ones that impact someone’s function or ability to do things the most. We do a whole biological, psychological, social, whole-person approach, and I would add an environmental approach because if you imagine getting someone to exercise, move better, or get up after a fall, it requires knowing everything about the patient.

Although we focus on the musculoskeletal and neurological systems, those are not the only systems we look at. We look at their blood pressure. If they’re fainting, that’s not going to help their function. Imagine all of that applied to the cancer world. Historically, the cancer world and the physical medicine and rehabilitation world have not mixed very much. The cancer rehabilitation medicine subspecialty is one of the fastest-growing subspecialties within PM&R, and the population of people who are surviving cancer is growing exponentially. Our [oncologists] are doing such a great job. With physical medicine and rehabilitation, we can help empower patients to live longer with less disability and a better quality of life.

What made you interested in this field of study?

: I started my medical journey with this appreciation of the mystery of healing. As with many people on the pre-medical journey, you learn a lot about organic chemistry and a lot about mechanisms. I shadowed some doctors with more of a holistic approach, and it was just very mysterious to me how osteopathic manipulation might be able to promote deeper levels of healing, like psychological, emotional, and spiritual healing.

When I found the specialty of PM&R, it seemed like a natural fit in that I like these body systems. It’s focused on practical things. I love practical creative strategies married with medical complexities and the whole-person approach. It was innate to the physical medicine and rehabilitation field. The more I dug into the research about cancer rehabilitation, the more shocked I was at how high the unmet need was. A lot of people going into their cancer journey are already older and already have aches and pains or difficulty moving. For cancer treatment, oncologists look at their ability to move around and their performance status to see if they’ll be able to handle their cancer treatment. It weighed on me that there’s so much opportunity for my field to make a difference in someone’s ability to even get cancer treatment. There’s so much of a gap to bridge. There’s so much headway to make in bringing these 2 fields together.

Is there a specific area of oncology that cancer rehabilitation focuses on?

Cancer rehabilitation medicine may help bridge a gap in oncology care, according to Jessica Cheng, MD. 

Sima K. Rad

Articles

Latest Updated Articles