Caleb Rans

Adjuvant denosumab did not improve bone metastasis–free survival and related outcomes in women with early-stage breast cancer, according to a phase 3 trial.

“We hypothesised that denosumab would modify the clinical course of early breast cancer, delaying the development of clinical bone metastases with or without disease recurrence at other sites,” reported Robert Coleman, MBBS, MD, of the University of Sheffield, England, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 D-CARE study included 4,509 women with early-stage, high-risk disease. The effects of adding denosumab to standard-of-care adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy was studied in 389 institutions around the globe. In the initial treatment phase, study patients received denosumab or placebo every 3-4 weeks in combination with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for approximately 6 months.

After completion of chemotherapy, the dosing interval was extended to every 12 weeks (range, 14 days) for a total of 5 years. The median age of women who received denosumab was 50 years (range, 44-59 years), 65% of whom were hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative. In the study, patients were stratified by various factors, including type of therapy, age, lymph node status, geographical region, and others. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of bone metastasis–free survival.

At 5-year follow-up, the researchers found no significant difference in bone metastasis–free survival between the denosumab and placebo treatment arms (median survival not reached in either arm; P = .70). With respect to safety, the most frequently seen grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (15% vs. 15%), febrile neutropenia (5% vs. 6%), and leukopenia (3% vs. 3%). Positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in 122 (5%) of 2,241 patients treated with denosumab versus 4 (less than 1%) of 2,218 patients treated with placebo, Dr. Coleman and colleagues wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the smaller than anticipated number of events for efficacy outcomes. As a result, the study protocol was modified, which could have limited the statistical power of the study. “The results of this study do not support a role for denosumab as an antitumour agent in this setting,” they concluded.

Amgen funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Covance, Lilly, Medivation, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and several others.

SOURCE: Coleman R et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30687-4.

Adjuvant denosumab did not improve bone metastasis–free survival and related outcomes in women with early-stage breast cancer, according to a phase 3 trial.

“We hypothesised that denosumab would modify the clinical course of early breast cancer, delaying the development of clinical bone metastases with or without disease recurrence at other sites,” reported Robert Coleman, MBBS, MD, of the University of Sheffield, England, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 D-CARE study included 4,509 women with early-stage, high-risk disease. The effects of adding denosumab to standard-of-care adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy was studied in 389 institutions around the globe. In the initial treatment phase, study patients received denosumab or placebo every 3-4 weeks in combination with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for approximately 6 months.

After completion of chemotherapy, the dosing interval was extended to every 12 weeks (range, 14 days) for a total of 5 years. The median age of women who received denosumab was 50 years (range, 44-59 years), 65% of whom were hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative. In the study, patients were stratified by various factors, including type of therapy, age, lymph node status, geographical region, and others. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of bone metastasis–free survival.

At 5-year follow-up, the researchers found no significant difference in bone metastasis–free survival between the denosumab and placebo treatment arms (median survival not reached in either arm; P = .70). With respect to safety, the most frequently seen grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (15% vs. 15%), febrile neutropenia (5% vs. 6%), and leukopenia (3% vs. 3%). Positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in 122 (5%) of 2,241 patients treated with denosumab versus 4 (less than 1%) of 2,218 patients treated with placebo, Dr. Coleman and colleagues wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the smaller than anticipated number of events for efficacy outcomes. As a result, the study protocol was modified, which could have limited the statistical power of the study. “The results of this study do not support a role for denosumab as an antitumour agent in this setting,” they concluded.

Amgen funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Covance, Lilly, Medivation, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and several others.

SOURCE: Coleman R et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30687-4.

Adjuvant denosumab did not improve bone metastasis–free survival and related outcomes in women with early-stage breast cancer, according to a phase 3 trial.

“We hypothesised that denosumab would modify the clinical course of early breast cancer, delaying the development of clinical bone metastases with or without disease recurrence at other sites,” reported Robert Coleman, MBBS, MD, of the University of Sheffield, England, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 D-CARE study included 4,509 women with early-stage, high-risk disease. The effects of adding denosumab to standard-of-care adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy was studied in 389 institutions around the globe. In the initial treatment phase, study patients received denosumab or placebo every 3-4 weeks in combination with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for approximately 6 months.

After completion of chemotherapy, the dosing interval was extended to every 12 weeks (range, 14 days) for a total of 5 years. The median age of women who received denosumab was 50 years (range, 44-59 years), 65% of whom were hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative. In the study, patients were stratified by various factors, including type of therapy, age, lymph node status, geographical region, and others. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of bone metastasis–free survival.

At 5-year follow-up, the researchers found no significant difference in bone metastasis–free survival between the denosumab and placebo treatment arms (median survival not reached in either arm; P = .70). With respect to safety, the most frequently seen grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (15% vs. 15%), febrile neutropenia (5% vs. 6%), and leukopenia (3% vs. 3%). Positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in 122 (5%) of 2,241 patients treated with denosumab versus 4 (less than 1%) of 2,218 patients treated with placebo, Dr. Coleman and colleagues wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the smaller than anticipated number of events for efficacy outcomes. As a result, the study protocol was modified, which could have limited the statistical power of the study. “The results of this study do not support a role for denosumab as an antitumour agent in this setting,” they concluded.

Amgen funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Covance, Lilly, Medivation, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and several others.

SOURCE: Coleman R et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30687-4.

A comparative cost analysis suggests single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery is associated with lower total resource utilization among other radiation therapy (RT) options, according to recent research.

“We quantified institutional costs associated with RT for spinal metastases, using a time-driven activity-based costing model,” wrote David Boyce-Fappiano, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

The researchers compared resource utilization across four common RT regimens: single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery (to 18 Gy), 3-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery (to 27 Gy), 10-fraction three-dimensional RT (3D-RT) (to 30 Gy), and 10-fraction intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) (to 30 Gy).

The analysis framework involved the creation of both process maps and process times, which included a detailed outline to map the complete clinical care process, while expert panel interviews were used to establish process times.

Other measures, such as the capacity cost rate, were calculated for each resource, and subsequently used to estimate total costs.

After analysis, the researchers found that across the four RT regimens, full-cycle care costs for single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery were 17% less and 17% more than IMRT and 3D-RT, respectively. However, technical costs for IMRT were 50% and 77% more than 3-fraction and single-fraction SSRS, respectively.

Overall, the analysis “supports the institutional resource efficiency of single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery for spinal metastases,” Dr. Boyce-Fappiano and associates said.

One key limitation of the analysis was the single-center design of the study. As a result, the findings may not be applicable to all clinical settings.

“Additional research can incorporate these data alongside toxicity and retreatment rates to evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of spine stereotactic radiosurgery over a full cycle of care,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported in the manuscript. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb BTG, Coleman Consulting, US Oncology, Oscar Health, RefleXion Medical, and several others.

SOURCE: Boyce-Fappiano D et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00480.

A comparative cost analysis suggests single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery is associated with lower total resource utilization among other radiation therapy (RT) options, according to recent research.

“We quantified institutional costs associated with RT for spinal metastases, using a time-driven activity-based costing model,” wrote David Boyce-Fappiano, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

The researchers compared resource utilization across four common RT regimens: single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery (to 18 Gy), 3-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery (to 27 Gy), 10-fraction three-dimensional RT (3D-RT) (to 30 Gy), and 10-fraction intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) (to 30 Gy).

The analysis framework involved the creation of both process maps and process times, which included a detailed outline to map the complete clinical care process, while expert panel interviews were used to establish process times.

Other measures, such as the capacity cost rate, were calculated for each resource, and subsequently used to estimate total costs.

After analysis, the researchers found that across the four RT regimens, full-cycle care costs for single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery were 17% less and 17% more than IMRT and 3D-RT, respectively. However, technical costs for IMRT were 50% and 77% more than 3-fraction and single-fraction SSRS, respectively.

Overall, the analysis “supports the institutional resource efficiency of single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery for spinal metastases,” Dr. Boyce-Fappiano and associates said.

One key limitation of the analysis was the single-center design of the study. As a result, the findings may not be applicable to all clinical settings.

“Additional research can incorporate these data alongside toxicity and retreatment rates to evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of spine stereotactic radiosurgery over a full cycle of care,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported in the manuscript. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb BTG, Coleman Consulting, US Oncology, Oscar Health, RefleXion Medical, and several others.

SOURCE: Boyce-Fappiano D et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00480.

A comparative cost analysis suggests single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery is associated with lower total resource utilization among other radiation therapy (RT) options, according to recent research.

“We quantified institutional costs associated with RT for spinal metastases, using a time-driven activity-based costing model,” wrote David Boyce-Fappiano, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

The researchers compared resource utilization across four common RT regimens: single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery (to 18 Gy), 3-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery (to 27 Gy), 10-fraction three-dimensional RT (3D-RT) (to 30 Gy), and 10-fraction intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) (to 30 Gy).

The analysis framework involved the creation of both process maps and process times, which included a detailed outline to map the complete clinical care process, while expert panel interviews were used to establish process times.

Other measures, such as the capacity cost rate, were calculated for each resource, and subsequently used to estimate total costs.

After analysis, the researchers found that across the four RT regimens, full-cycle care costs for single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery were 17% less and 17% more than IMRT and 3D-RT, respectively. However, technical costs for IMRT were 50% and 77% more than 3-fraction and single-fraction SSRS, respectively.

Overall, the analysis “supports the institutional resource efficiency of single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery for spinal metastases,” Dr. Boyce-Fappiano and associates said.

One key limitation of the analysis was the single-center design of the study. As a result, the findings may not be applicable to all clinical settings.

“Additional research can incorporate these data alongside toxicity and retreatment rates to evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of spine stereotactic radiosurgery over a full cycle of care,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported in the manuscript. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb BTG, Coleman Consulting, US Oncology, Oscar Health, RefleXion Medical, and several others.

SOURCE: Boyce-Fappiano D et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00480.

SOX11 may be an accurate diagnostic marker for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), allowing clinicians to distinguish it from other lymphoproliferative disorders, according to findings from a meta-analysis of 14 case-control studies.

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Woojoo Lee, PhD, of Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea, and coinvestigators, evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of SOX11 immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of MCL. The results were published in PLoS One.

The researchers searched major databases for studies that evaluated the use of SOX11 immunohistochemistry in patients with MCL and other lymphoproliferative disorders. After applying the search parameters, the team identified 383 studies, 14 of which were included in the meta-analysis. Various data were extracted from eligible studies, including the type and clonality of anti-SOX11 antibody, number of SOX11-positive lymphomas (MCLs and other lymphoproliferative disorders), specificity, sensitivity, and others. After combining the data, the investigators calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve. Among the included studies, hairy cell leukemia, Burkitt’s lymphoma, and lymphoblastic lymphoma were common among patient populations. In total, clone MRQ-58 mouse antibodies were used in five study populations.

The researchers found that the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.9-0.97), and sensitivity was 0.9 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92). There was statistically significant substantial heterogeneity observed for specificity, but not for sensitivity, the investigators reported.

“The results demonstrated that SOX11 was a potential diagnostic marker for MCL,” they wrote. “Meta-regression revealed a significant inverse relationship between specificity and proportions of [Burkitt’s lymphoma, lymphoblastic lymphoma, and hairy cell leukemia].”

With respect to antibody type, the clone MRQ-58 mouse antibody showed consistently high specificity in the clinical setting, despite observed heterogeneity.

“Future studies using MRQ-58 are needed to improve our understanding of the diagnostic accuracy of SOX11 immunohistochemistry for MCL,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by the Next-Generation BioGreen 21 program (Republic of Korea). The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lee W et al. PLoS One. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225096.

SOX11 may be an accurate diagnostic marker for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), allowing clinicians to distinguish it from other lymphoproliferative disorders, according to findings from a meta-analysis of 14 case-control studies.

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Woojoo Lee, PhD, of Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea, and coinvestigators, evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of SOX11 immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of MCL. The results were published in PLoS One.

The researchers searched major databases for studies that evaluated the use of SOX11 immunohistochemistry in patients with MCL and other lymphoproliferative disorders. After applying the search parameters, the team identified 383 studies, 14 of which were included in the meta-analysis. Various data were extracted from eligible studies, including the type and clonality of anti-SOX11 antibody, number of SOX11-positive lymphomas (MCLs and other lymphoproliferative disorders), specificity, sensitivity, and others. After combining the data, the investigators calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve. Among the included studies, hairy cell leukemia, Burkitt’s lymphoma, and lymphoblastic lymphoma were common among patient populations. In total, clone MRQ-58 mouse antibodies were used in five study populations.

The researchers found that the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.9-0.97), and sensitivity was 0.9 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92). There was statistically significant substantial heterogeneity observed for specificity, but not for sensitivity, the investigators reported.

“The results demonstrated that SOX11 was a potential diagnostic marker for MCL,” they wrote. “Meta-regression revealed a significant inverse relationship between specificity and proportions of [Burkitt’s lymphoma, lymphoblastic lymphoma, and hairy cell leukemia].”

With respect to antibody type, the clone MRQ-58 mouse antibody showed consistently high specificity in the clinical setting, despite observed heterogeneity.

“Future studies using MRQ-58 are needed to improve our understanding of the diagnostic accuracy of SOX11 immunohistochemistry for MCL,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by the Next-Generation BioGreen 21 program (Republic of Korea). The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lee W et al. PLoS One. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225096.

SOX11 may be an accurate diagnostic marker for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), allowing clinicians to distinguish it from other lymphoproliferative disorders, according to findings from a meta-analysis of 14 case-control studies.

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Woojoo Lee, PhD, of Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea, and coinvestigators, evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of SOX11 immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of MCL. The results were published in PLoS One.

The researchers searched major databases for studies that evaluated the use of SOX11 immunohistochemistry in patients with MCL and other lymphoproliferative disorders. After applying the search parameters, the team identified 383 studies, 14 of which were included in the meta-analysis. Various data were extracted from eligible studies, including the type and clonality of anti-SOX11 antibody, number of SOX11-positive lymphomas (MCLs and other lymphoproliferative disorders), specificity, sensitivity, and others. After combining the data, the investigators calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve. Among the included studies, hairy cell leukemia, Burkitt’s lymphoma, and lymphoblastic lymphoma were common among patient populations. In total, clone MRQ-58 mouse antibodies were used in five study populations.

The researchers found that the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.9-0.97), and sensitivity was 0.9 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92). There was statistically significant substantial heterogeneity observed for specificity, but not for sensitivity, the investigators reported.

“The results demonstrated that SOX11 was a potential diagnostic marker for MCL,” they wrote. “Meta-regression revealed a significant inverse relationship between specificity and proportions of [Burkitt’s lymphoma, lymphoblastic lymphoma, and hairy cell leukemia].”

With respect to antibody type, the clone MRQ-58 mouse antibody showed consistently high specificity in the clinical setting, despite observed heterogeneity.

“Future studies using MRQ-58 are needed to improve our understanding of the diagnostic accuracy of SOX11 immunohistochemistry for MCL,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by the Next-Generation BioGreen 21 program (Republic of Korea). The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lee W et al. PLoS One. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225096.

The use of glucocorticoids was associated with damage accrual independent of serologic or clinical disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to recent findings published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“Disentangling the potential contribution of glucocorticoid use to organ damage in SLE is confounded, in most studies, by the fact that glucocorticoid use is usually associated with active disease. Our study showed that organ damage accrual occurred in a similar proportion of patients without disease activity as in the overall cohort, and that glucocorticoid use was a significant risk factor for damage,” wrote Diane Apostolopoulos, MBBS, of Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues.

The longitudinal cohort study prospectively enrolled 1,707 patients with SLE from May 2013 to December 2016. Study participants were recruited from 13 institutions throughout Australia and Asia. The researchers defined glucocorticoid use as any exposure and cumulative exposure to prednisolone, in addition to mean time-adjusted daily prednisolone dose. Follow-up assessment occurred at least once every 6 months and varied depending on clinical necessity. At baseline, the researchers collected various demographic information, including smoking status, age, and education level, among others. The primary endpoint measured was organ damage accrual, which was assessed at baseline and annually thereafter. In addition, disease activity was evaluated in two multivariable models using Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) scores.

After a median duration of 2.2 years, the researchers found that 82.3% of patients were exposed to prednisolone, and 14.9% of patients had experienced a damage accrual event. In the PGA model, mean time-adjusted PGA score (based on a 0- to 1-unit increase) was associated with damage accrual independent of clinical or serologic disease activity (hazard ratio, 1.05; P = .0012).

In the SLEDAI-2K model, baseline damage scores were independently associated with damage accrual (hazard ratio, 1.32; P = .0427).

In both models, ethnicity (Asian vs. non-Asian), age at study enrollment, and mean time-adjusted prednisolone dose were parameters independently associated with damage accrual.

“Novel findings from this study were that Asian ethnicity was protective when compared with any non-­Asian ethnicity, and that antimalarial usage was not protective for damage accrual,” the researchers wrote.

Despite the novel results, the researchers acknowledged that the protective effects of antimalarials could have gone undetected because of the short duration of follow-up.

In a related editorial, Guillermo Ruiz-Irastorza, MD, PhD, of University of the Basque Country in Bizkaia, Spain, said that the study provides novel data highlighting that glucocorticoid use has the potential to negatively affect the clinical progression of patients with SLE (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30132-8).

One question that remains from the current study is how to effectively reduce glucocorticoid-related adverse events, while still managing the disease, he further explained.

“These findings suggest that unnecessary use of glucocorticoids should be avoided in the manage­ment of the disease where possible,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. The authors reported financial affiliations with Abbott, AbbVie, Astellas, Ayumi Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and several others.

SOURCE: Apostolopoulos D et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30105-5.

The use of glucocorticoids was associated with damage accrual independent of serologic or clinical disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to recent findings published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“Disentangling the potential contribution of glucocorticoid use to organ damage in SLE is confounded, in most studies, by the fact that glucocorticoid use is usually associated with active disease. Our study showed that organ damage accrual occurred in a similar proportion of patients without disease activity as in the overall cohort, and that glucocorticoid use was a significant risk factor for damage,” wrote Diane Apostolopoulos, MBBS, of Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues.

The longitudinal cohort study prospectively enrolled 1,707 patients with SLE from May 2013 to December 2016. Study participants were recruited from 13 institutions throughout Australia and Asia. The researchers defined glucocorticoid use as any exposure and cumulative exposure to prednisolone, in addition to mean time-adjusted daily prednisolone dose. Follow-up assessment occurred at least once every 6 months and varied depending on clinical necessity. At baseline, the researchers collected various demographic information, including smoking status, age, and education level, among others. The primary endpoint measured was organ damage accrual, which was assessed at baseline and annually thereafter. In addition, disease activity was evaluated in two multivariable models using Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) scores.

After a median duration of 2.2 years, the researchers found that 82.3% of patients were exposed to prednisolone, and 14.9% of patients had experienced a damage accrual event. In the PGA model, mean time-adjusted PGA score (based on a 0- to 1-unit increase) was associated with damage accrual independent of clinical or serologic disease activity (hazard ratio, 1.05; P = .0012).

In the SLEDAI-2K model, baseline damage scores were independently associated with damage accrual (hazard ratio, 1.32; P = .0427).

In both models, ethnicity (Asian vs. non-Asian), age at study enrollment, and mean time-adjusted prednisolone dose were parameters independently associated with damage accrual.

“Novel findings from this study were that Asian ethnicity was protective when compared with any non-­Asian ethnicity, and that antimalarial usage was not protective for damage accrual,” the researchers wrote.

Despite the novel results, the researchers acknowledged that the protective effects of antimalarials could have gone undetected because of the short duration of follow-up.

In a related editorial, Guillermo Ruiz-Irastorza, MD, PhD, of University of the Basque Country in Bizkaia, Spain, said that the study provides novel data highlighting that glucocorticoid use has the potential to negatively affect the clinical progression of patients with SLE (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30132-8).

One question that remains from the current study is how to effectively reduce glucocorticoid-related adverse events, while still managing the disease, he further explained.

“These findings suggest that unnecessary use of glucocorticoids should be avoided in the manage­ment of the disease where possible,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. The authors reported financial affiliations with Abbott, AbbVie, Astellas, Ayumi Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and several others.

SOURCE: Apostolopoulos D et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30105-5.

The use of glucocorticoids was associated with damage accrual independent of serologic or clinical disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to recent findings published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“Disentangling the potential contribution of glucocorticoid use to organ damage in SLE is confounded, in most studies, by the fact that glucocorticoid use is usually associated with active disease. Our study showed that organ damage accrual occurred in a similar proportion of patients without disease activity as in the overall cohort, and that glucocorticoid use was a significant risk factor for damage,” wrote Diane Apostolopoulos, MBBS, of Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues.

The longitudinal cohort study prospectively enrolled 1,707 patients with SLE from May 2013 to December 2016. Study participants were recruited from 13 institutions throughout Australia and Asia. The researchers defined glucocorticoid use as any exposure and cumulative exposure to prednisolone, in addition to mean time-adjusted daily prednisolone dose. Follow-up assessment occurred at least once every 6 months and varied depending on clinical necessity. At baseline, the researchers collected various demographic information, including smoking status, age, and education level, among others. The primary endpoint measured was organ damage accrual, which was assessed at baseline and annually thereafter. In addition, disease activity was evaluated in two multivariable models using Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) scores.

After a median duration of 2.2 years, the researchers found that 82.3% of patients were exposed to prednisolone, and 14.9% of patients had experienced a damage accrual event. In the PGA model, mean time-adjusted PGA score (based on a 0- to 1-unit increase) was associated with damage accrual independent of clinical or serologic disease activity (hazard ratio, 1.05; P = .0012).

In the SLEDAI-2K model, baseline damage scores were independently associated with damage accrual (hazard ratio, 1.32; P = .0427).

In both models, ethnicity (Asian vs. non-Asian), age at study enrollment, and mean time-adjusted prednisolone dose were parameters independently associated with damage accrual.

“Novel findings from this study were that Asian ethnicity was protective when compared with any non-­Asian ethnicity, and that antimalarial usage was not protective for damage accrual,” the researchers wrote.

Despite the novel results, the researchers acknowledged that the protective effects of antimalarials could have gone undetected because of the short duration of follow-up.

In a related editorial, Guillermo Ruiz-Irastorza, MD, PhD, of University of the Basque Country in Bizkaia, Spain, said that the study provides novel data highlighting that glucocorticoid use has the potential to negatively affect the clinical progression of patients with SLE (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30132-8).

One question that remains from the current study is how to effectively reduce glucocorticoid-related adverse events, while still managing the disease, he further explained.

“These findings suggest that unnecessary use of glucocorticoids should be avoided in the manage­ment of the disease where possible,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. The authors reported financial affiliations with Abbott, AbbVie, Astellas, Ayumi Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and several others.

SOURCE: Apostolopoulos D et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30105-5.

Ibrutinib monotherapy was associated with lower total health care costs compared with chemoimmunotherapy in the frontline treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to a retrospective study.

©Mathier/thinkstockphotos.com

“This study compared time to next treatment, health care resource utilization, and total direct costs among patients with CLL initiating front-line ibrutinib single agent or chemoimmunotherapy,” wrote Bruno Emond, of Analysis Group, Montreal, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 1,161 patients with CLL who were started on ibrutinib monotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy from 2014 to 2017. Data were collected from the Optum Clinformatics Extended DataMart De-Identified Databases.

Between the two groups, differences in baseline characteristics were controlled for by way of inverse probability of treatment weighting. Two treatment periods were included in the study: the initial 6 months of treatment and entire duration of frontline therapy.

The team also conducted a subgroup analysis of patients treated with bendamustine and rituximab. This cohort was analyzed independently since the regimen is commonly used in clinical practice.

After analysis, the researchers found that ibrutinib monotherapy was associated with net monthly cost savings of $3,766 (P less than .0001), compared with chemoimmunotherapy and bendamustine/rituximab over the frontline therapy period.

Ibrutinib patients had fewer monthly days with outpatient services (rate ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.94; P = .0200), compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy; and were less likely to initiate a next line of treatment, compared with chemoimmunotherapy patients (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.90; P = .0163).

“Cost savings and reductions in health care resource utilization were even more pronounced when considering only the first 6 months of front-line treatment,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the potential influence of unobserved confounding factors and the use of claims data, which could include errors and omissions.

“These results suggest that ibrutinib single-agent is associated with lower total costs driven by lower medical costs, despite higher pharmacy costs, compared with chemoimmunotherapy and bendamustine/rituximab,” they concluded.

The authors reported financial affiliations with Janssen Scientific Affairs, which funded the study, and other companies.

SOURCE: Emond B et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.08.004.

Ibrutinib monotherapy was associated with lower total health care costs compared with chemoimmunotherapy in the frontline treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to a retrospective study.

©Mathier/thinkstockphotos.com

“This study compared time to next treatment, health care resource utilization, and total direct costs among patients with CLL initiating front-line ibrutinib single agent or chemoimmunotherapy,” wrote Bruno Emond, of Analysis Group, Montreal, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 1,161 patients with CLL who were started on ibrutinib monotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy from 2014 to 2017. Data were collected from the Optum Clinformatics Extended DataMart De-Identified Databases.

Between the two groups, differences in baseline characteristics were controlled for by way of inverse probability of treatment weighting. Two treatment periods were included in the study: the initial 6 months of treatment and entire duration of frontline therapy.

The team also conducted a subgroup analysis of patients treated with bendamustine and rituximab. This cohort was analyzed independently since the regimen is commonly used in clinical practice.

After analysis, the researchers found that ibrutinib monotherapy was associated with net monthly cost savings of $3,766 (P less than .0001), compared with chemoimmunotherapy and bendamustine/rituximab over the frontline therapy period.

Ibrutinib patients had fewer monthly days with outpatient services (rate ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.94; P = .0200), compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy; and were less likely to initiate a next line of treatment, compared with chemoimmunotherapy patients (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.90; P = .0163).

“Cost savings and reductions in health care resource utilization were even more pronounced when considering only the first 6 months of front-line treatment,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the potential influence of unobserved confounding factors and the use of claims data, which could include errors and omissions.

“These results suggest that ibrutinib single-agent is associated with lower total costs driven by lower medical costs, despite higher pharmacy costs, compared with chemoimmunotherapy and bendamustine/rituximab,” they concluded.

The authors reported financial affiliations with Janssen Scientific Affairs, which funded the study, and other companies.

SOURCE: Emond B et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.08.004.

Ibrutinib monotherapy was associated with lower total health care costs compared with chemoimmunotherapy in the frontline treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to a retrospective study.

©Mathier/thinkstockphotos.com

“This study compared time to next treatment, health care resource utilization, and total direct costs among patients with CLL initiating front-line ibrutinib single agent or chemoimmunotherapy,” wrote Bruno Emond, of Analysis Group, Montreal, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 1,161 patients with CLL who were started on ibrutinib monotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy from 2014 to 2017. Data were collected from the Optum Clinformatics Extended DataMart De-Identified Databases.

Between the two groups, differences in baseline characteristics were controlled for by way of inverse probability of treatment weighting. Two treatment periods were included in the study: the initial 6 months of treatment and entire duration of frontline therapy.

The team also conducted a subgroup analysis of patients treated with bendamustine and rituximab. This cohort was analyzed independently since the regimen is commonly used in clinical practice.

After analysis, the researchers found that ibrutinib monotherapy was associated with net monthly cost savings of $3,766 (P less than .0001), compared with chemoimmunotherapy and bendamustine/rituximab over the frontline therapy period.

Ibrutinib patients had fewer monthly days with outpatient services (rate ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.94; P = .0200), compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy; and were less likely to initiate a next line of treatment, compared with chemoimmunotherapy patients (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.90; P = .0163).

“Cost savings and reductions in health care resource utilization were even more pronounced when considering only the first 6 months of front-line treatment,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the potential influence of unobserved confounding factors and the use of claims data, which could include errors and omissions.

“These results suggest that ibrutinib single-agent is associated with lower total costs driven by lower medical costs, despite higher pharmacy costs, compared with chemoimmunotherapy and bendamustine/rituximab,” they concluded.

The authors reported financial affiliations with Janssen Scientific Affairs, which funded the study, and other companies.

SOURCE: Emond B et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.08.004.

Early treatment with lenalidomide may delay disease progression and prevent end-organ damage in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), according to findings from a phase 3 trial.

While observation is the current standard of care in SMM, early therapy may represent a new standard for patients with high-risk disease, explained Sagar Lonial, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues. Their findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The randomized, open-label, phase 3 study included 182 patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM. Study patients were randomly allocated to receive either oral lenalidomide at 25 mg daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle or observation.

Study subjects were stratified based on time since SMM diagnosis – 1 year or less vs. more than 1 year, and all patients in the lenalidomide arm received aspirin at 325 mg on days 1-28. Both interventions were maintained until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or withdrawal for other reasons.

The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from baseline to the development of symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). The criteria for progression included evidence of end-organ damage in relation to MM and biochemical disease progression.

The researchers found that at 1 year PFS was 98% in the lenalidomide group and 89% in the observation group. At 2 years, PFS was 93% in the lenalidomide group and 76% in the observation group. PFS was 91% in the lenalidomide group and 66% in the observation group at 3 years (hazard ratio, 0.28; P = .002).

Among lenalidomide-treated patients, grade 3 or 4 hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 36 patients (41%). Nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 25 patients (28%).

Frequent AEs among lenalidomide-treated patients included grade 4 decreased neutrophil count (4.5%), as well as grade 3 infections (20.5%), hypertension (9.1%), fatigue (6.8%), skin problems (5.7%), dyspnea (5.7%), and hypokalemia (3.4%). “In most cases, [adverse events] could be managed with dose modifications,” they wrote.

To reduce long-term toxicity, the researchers recommended a 2-year duration of therapy for patients at highest risk.

“Our results support the use of early intervention in patients with high-risk SMM – as defined by the 20/2/20 criteria where our magnitude of benefit was the greatest – rather than continued observation,” the researchers wrote.

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Sanofi, Takeda, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Lonial S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01740.

Early treatment with lenalidomide may delay disease progression and prevent end-organ damage in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), according to findings from a phase 3 trial.

While observation is the current standard of care in SMM, early therapy may represent a new standard for patients with high-risk disease, explained Sagar Lonial, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues. Their findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The randomized, open-label, phase 3 study included 182 patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM. Study patients were randomly allocated to receive either oral lenalidomide at 25 mg daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle or observation.

Study subjects were stratified based on time since SMM diagnosis – 1 year or less vs. more than 1 year, and all patients in the lenalidomide arm received aspirin at 325 mg on days 1-28. Both interventions were maintained until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or withdrawal for other reasons.

The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from baseline to the development of symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). The criteria for progression included evidence of end-organ damage in relation to MM and biochemical disease progression.

The researchers found that at 1 year PFS was 98% in the lenalidomide group and 89% in the observation group. At 2 years, PFS was 93% in the lenalidomide group and 76% in the observation group. PFS was 91% in the lenalidomide group and 66% in the observation group at 3 years (hazard ratio, 0.28; P = .002).

Among lenalidomide-treated patients, grade 3 or 4 hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 36 patients (41%). Nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 25 patients (28%).

Frequent AEs among lenalidomide-treated patients included grade 4 decreased neutrophil count (4.5%), as well as grade 3 infections (20.5%), hypertension (9.1%), fatigue (6.8%), skin problems (5.7%), dyspnea (5.7%), and hypokalemia (3.4%). “In most cases, [adverse events] could be managed with dose modifications,” they wrote.

To reduce long-term toxicity, the researchers recommended a 2-year duration of therapy for patients at highest risk.

“Our results support the use of early intervention in patients with high-risk SMM – as defined by the 20/2/20 criteria where our magnitude of benefit was the greatest – rather than continued observation,” the researchers wrote.

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Sanofi, Takeda, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Lonial S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01740.

Early treatment with lenalidomide may delay disease progression and prevent end-organ damage in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), according to findings from a phase 3 trial.

While observation is the current standard of care in SMM, early therapy may represent a new standard for patients with high-risk disease, explained Sagar Lonial, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues. Their findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The randomized, open-label, phase 3 study included 182 patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM. Study patients were randomly allocated to receive either oral lenalidomide at 25 mg daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle or observation.

Study subjects were stratified based on time since SMM diagnosis – 1 year or less vs. more than 1 year, and all patients in the lenalidomide arm received aspirin at 325 mg on days 1-28. Both interventions were maintained until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or withdrawal for other reasons.

The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from baseline to the development of symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). The criteria for progression included evidence of end-organ damage in relation to MM and biochemical disease progression.

The researchers found that at 1 year PFS was 98% in the lenalidomide group and 89% in the observation group. At 2 years, PFS was 93% in the lenalidomide group and 76% in the observation group. PFS was 91% in the lenalidomide group and 66% in the observation group at 3 years (hazard ratio, 0.28; P = .002).

Among lenalidomide-treated patients, grade 3 or 4 hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 36 patients (41%). Nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 25 patients (28%).

Frequent AEs among lenalidomide-treated patients included grade 4 decreased neutrophil count (4.5%), as well as grade 3 infections (20.5%), hypertension (9.1%), fatigue (6.8%), skin problems (5.7%), dyspnea (5.7%), and hypokalemia (3.4%). “In most cases, [adverse events] could be managed with dose modifications,” they wrote.

To reduce long-term toxicity, the researchers recommended a 2-year duration of therapy for patients at highest risk.

“Our results support the use of early intervention in patients with high-risk SMM – as defined by the 20/2/20 criteria where our magnitude of benefit was the greatest – rather than continued observation,” the researchers wrote.

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Sanofi, Takeda, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Lonial S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01740.

Breast cancer survivors may have a lower prevalence of cardiac risk factors at the time of first myocardial infarction and better outcomes compared with those having a first MI from the general population, according to findings from a retrospective study.

In addition, women without breast cancer were younger at the time of first MI compared with survivors, wrote Srikanth Yandrapalli, MD, of New York Medical College, Valhalla, and colleagues. Their report is in the American Journal of Medicine.

The researchers identified 1,644,032 women with a first MI, 56,842 of whom were breast cancer survivors. The team evaluated differences in the prevalence of cardiac risk factors and related outcomes in breast cancer survivors in comparison to the general population.

At baseline, the mean age of subjects with a history of breast cancer was 77 years (range, 11 years), while the mean age of women without breast cancer was 71 years (range, 15 years).

Clinical data were collected from the United States National Inpatient Sample for January 2005 to September 2015. Other outcomes assessed were differences in baseline characteristics and the rate of in-hospital mortality in both groups.

After analysis, the researchers found that breast cancer survivors had a lower prevalence of diabetes mellitus (30.1% vs. 33.1%), obesity (9.4% vs. 13.0%), and smoking (24.1% vs. 27.0%), but higher rates of dyslipidemia (52.7% vs. 48.4%) and hypertension (73.6% vs. 68.1%), compared with women without breast cancer (All P less than .001).

With respect to age, women without breast cancer were 6 years younger than breast cancer survivors at the time of first acute MI (mean age, 71 vs. 77 years; P less than .001).

In addition, the rate of in-hospital mortality was higher in women without breast cancer (7.9%) compared with survivors (7.1%) (P less than .001). After risk adjustment, these results remained unchanged (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.94).

“Breast cancer survivors in the U.S. are at least 6 years older than the general population of women without breast cancer, and they had a favorable cardiac risk factor profile at the time of first myocardial infarction,” Dr. Yandrapalli and colleagues explained. “The reason for these findings are unclear and hypothesis generating,” they added.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, the potential effects of residual confounding should be considered when interpreting the results.

“The favorable impact of health education and participation in cancer survivorship programs on these observed differences in breast cancer survivors should be further explored,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yandrapalli S et al. Am J Med. 2019 Nov 9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.10.018.

Breast cancer survivors may have a lower prevalence of cardiac risk factors at the time of first myocardial infarction and better outcomes compared with those having a first MI from the general population, according to findings from a retrospective study.

In addition, women without breast cancer were younger at the time of first MI compared with survivors, wrote Srikanth Yandrapalli, MD, of New York Medical College, Valhalla, and colleagues. Their report is in the American Journal of Medicine.

The researchers identified 1,644,032 women with a first MI, 56,842 of whom were breast cancer survivors. The team evaluated differences in the prevalence of cardiac risk factors and related outcomes in breast cancer survivors in comparison to the general population.

At baseline, the mean age of subjects with a history of breast cancer was 77 years (range, 11 years), while the mean age of women without breast cancer was 71 years (range, 15 years).

Clinical data were collected from the United States National Inpatient Sample for January 2005 to September 2015. Other outcomes assessed were differences in baseline characteristics and the rate of in-hospital mortality in both groups.

After analysis, the researchers found that breast cancer survivors had a lower prevalence of diabetes mellitus (30.1% vs. 33.1%), obesity (9.4% vs. 13.0%), and smoking (24.1% vs. 27.0%), but higher rates of dyslipidemia (52.7% vs. 48.4%) and hypertension (73.6% vs. 68.1%), compared with women without breast cancer (All P less than .001).

With respect to age, women without breast cancer were 6 years younger than breast cancer survivors at the time of first acute MI (mean age, 71 vs. 77 years; P less than .001).

In addition, the rate of in-hospital mortality was higher in women without breast cancer (7.9%) compared with survivors (7.1%) (P less than .001). After risk adjustment, these results remained unchanged (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.94).

“Breast cancer survivors in the U.S. are at least 6 years older than the general population of women without breast cancer, and they had a favorable cardiac risk factor profile at the time of first myocardial infarction,” Dr. Yandrapalli and colleagues explained. “The reason for these findings are unclear and hypothesis generating,” they added.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, the potential effects of residual confounding should be considered when interpreting the results.

“The favorable impact of health education and participation in cancer survivorship programs on these observed differences in breast cancer survivors should be further explored,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yandrapalli S et al. Am J Med. 2019 Nov 9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.10.018.

Breast cancer survivors may have a lower prevalence of cardiac risk factors at the time of first myocardial infarction and better outcomes compared with those having a first MI from the general population, according to findings from a retrospective study.

In addition, women without breast cancer were younger at the time of first MI compared with survivors, wrote Srikanth Yandrapalli, MD, of New York Medical College, Valhalla, and colleagues. Their report is in the American Journal of Medicine.

The researchers identified 1,644,032 women with a first MI, 56,842 of whom were breast cancer survivors. The team evaluated differences in the prevalence of cardiac risk factors and related outcomes in breast cancer survivors in comparison to the general population.

At baseline, the mean age of subjects with a history of breast cancer was 77 years (range, 11 years), while the mean age of women without breast cancer was 71 years (range, 15 years).

Clinical data were collected from the United States National Inpatient Sample for January 2005 to September 2015. Other outcomes assessed were differences in baseline characteristics and the rate of in-hospital mortality in both groups.

After analysis, the researchers found that breast cancer survivors had a lower prevalence of diabetes mellitus (30.1% vs. 33.1%), obesity (9.4% vs. 13.0%), and smoking (24.1% vs. 27.0%), but higher rates of dyslipidemia (52.7% vs. 48.4%) and hypertension (73.6% vs. 68.1%), compared with women without breast cancer (All P less than .001).

With respect to age, women without breast cancer were 6 years younger than breast cancer survivors at the time of first acute MI (mean age, 71 vs. 77 years; P less than .001).

In addition, the rate of in-hospital mortality was higher in women without breast cancer (7.9%) compared with survivors (7.1%) (P less than .001). After risk adjustment, these results remained unchanged (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.94).

“Breast cancer survivors in the U.S. are at least 6 years older than the general population of women without breast cancer, and they had a favorable cardiac risk factor profile at the time of first myocardial infarction,” Dr. Yandrapalli and colleagues explained. “The reason for these findings are unclear and hypothesis generating,” they added.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, the potential effects of residual confounding should be considered when interpreting the results.

“The favorable impact of health education and participation in cancer survivorship programs on these observed differences in breast cancer survivors should be further explored,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yandrapalli S et al. Am J Med. 2019 Nov 9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.10.018.

The tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) lorlatinib showed deep responses and intracranial activity in both TKI-pretreated and TKI-naive patients with advanced ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results from a phase 1-2 trial.

“We investigated the antitumour activity and safety of lorlatinib in advanced, ROS1-positive NSCLC,” wrote Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet Oncology.

The single-arm, open-label study included 69 patients with advanced ROS1-positive disease with or without CNS involvement. The effects of lorlatinib were evaluated across 28 institutions in 12 different countries around the globe.

At baseline, the median age of study participants was 54 years (range, 44-61 years), and 57% were positive for brain metastases.

Study participants received 100 mg of oral lorlatinib once daily in repeated 21-day cycles. Drug therapy was continued until death, disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent.

The primary outcome measured was intracranial and overall response. Activity outcomes were evaluated in subjects given a minimum of one dose of lorlatinib.

A total of 58% of patients were previously treated with crizotinib, while 30% of patients were TKI-naive. Among 40 crizotinib-pretreated patients, 14 patients (35%) had an objective response, with a median duration of response and PFS of 13.8 and 8.5 months, respectively.

Among 21 TKI-naive patients, 13 patients (62%) had an objective response, with a median duration of response and PFS of 25.3 and 21 months, respectively.

“Intracranial responses were achieved in seven (64%) of 11 TKI-naive patients and 12 (50%) of 24 previous crizotinib-only patients,” they reported.

With respect to safety, serious lorlatinib-related adverse events were observed in 7% of patients, with no therapy-related deaths reported. The most frequently seen grade 3-4 TEAEs were hypertriglyceridemia (19%) and hypercholesterolemia (14%).

The researchers noted a key limitation of the study was the small sample size; however, due to the rare nature of ROS1 rearrangements in patients with NSCLC, increasing enrollment for future studies could be challenging.

“Because crizotinib-refractory patients have few treatment options, lorlatinib could represent an important next-line targeted agent,” they concluded.

Pfizer funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with Ariad, Blueprint Medicines, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Pfizer, KSQ Therapeutics, Servier, TP Therapeutics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Shaw AT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 25. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30655-2.

The tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) lorlatinib showed deep responses and intracranial activity in both TKI-pretreated and TKI-naive patients with advanced ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results from a phase 1-2 trial.

“We investigated the antitumour activity and safety of lorlatinib in advanced, ROS1-positive NSCLC,” wrote Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet Oncology.

The single-arm, open-label study included 69 patients with advanced ROS1-positive disease with or without CNS involvement. The effects of lorlatinib were evaluated across 28 institutions in 12 different countries around the globe.

At baseline, the median age of study participants was 54 years (range, 44-61 years), and 57% were positive for brain metastases.

Study participants received 100 mg of oral lorlatinib once daily in repeated 21-day cycles. Drug therapy was continued until death, disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent.

The primary outcome measured was intracranial and overall response. Activity outcomes were evaluated in subjects given a minimum of one dose of lorlatinib.

A total of 58% of patients were previously treated with crizotinib, while 30% of patients were TKI-naive. Among 40 crizotinib-pretreated patients, 14 patients (35%) had an objective response, with a median duration of response and PFS of 13.8 and 8.5 months, respectively.

Among 21 TKI-naive patients, 13 patients (62%) had an objective response, with a median duration of response and PFS of 25.3 and 21 months, respectively.

“Intracranial responses were achieved in seven (64%) of 11 TKI-naive patients and 12 (50%) of 24 previous crizotinib-only patients,” they reported.

With respect to safety, serious lorlatinib-related adverse events were observed in 7% of patients, with no therapy-related deaths reported. The most frequently seen grade 3-4 TEAEs were hypertriglyceridemia (19%) and hypercholesterolemia (14%).

The researchers noted a key limitation of the study was the small sample size; however, due to the rare nature of ROS1 rearrangements in patients with NSCLC, increasing enrollment for future studies could be challenging.

“Because crizotinib-refractory patients have few treatment options, lorlatinib could represent an important next-line targeted agent,” they concluded.

Pfizer funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with Ariad, Blueprint Medicines, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Pfizer, KSQ Therapeutics, Servier, TP Therapeutics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Shaw AT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 25. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30655-2.

The tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) lorlatinib showed deep responses and intracranial activity in both TKI-pretreated and TKI-naive patients with advanced ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results from a phase 1-2 trial.

“We investigated the antitumour activity and safety of lorlatinib in advanced, ROS1-positive NSCLC,” wrote Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet Oncology.

The single-arm, open-label study included 69 patients with advanced ROS1-positive disease with or without CNS involvement. The effects of lorlatinib were evaluated across 28 institutions in 12 different countries around the globe.

At baseline, the median age of study participants was 54 years (range, 44-61 years), and 57% were positive for brain metastases.

Study participants received 100 mg of oral lorlatinib once daily in repeated 21-day cycles. Drug therapy was continued until death, disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent.

The primary outcome measured was intracranial and overall response. Activity outcomes were evaluated in subjects given a minimum of one dose of lorlatinib.

A total of 58% of patients were previously treated with crizotinib, while 30% of patients were TKI-naive. Among 40 crizotinib-pretreated patients, 14 patients (35%) had an objective response, with a median duration of response and PFS of 13.8 and 8.5 months, respectively.

Among 21 TKI-naive patients, 13 patients (62%) had an objective response, with a median duration of response and PFS of 25.3 and 21 months, respectively.

“Intracranial responses were achieved in seven (64%) of 11 TKI-naive patients and 12 (50%) of 24 previous crizotinib-only patients,” they reported.

With respect to safety, serious lorlatinib-related adverse events were observed in 7% of patients, with no therapy-related deaths reported. The most frequently seen grade 3-4 TEAEs were hypertriglyceridemia (19%) and hypercholesterolemia (14%).

The researchers noted a key limitation of the study was the small sample size; however, due to the rare nature of ROS1 rearrangements in patients with NSCLC, increasing enrollment for future studies could be challenging.

“Because crizotinib-refractory patients have few treatment options, lorlatinib could represent an important next-line targeted agent,” they concluded.

Pfizer funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with Ariad, Blueprint Medicines, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Pfizer, KSQ Therapeutics, Servier, TP Therapeutics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Shaw AT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 25. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30655-2.

Antifungal prophylaxis with caspofungin led to a lower incidence of invasive fungal disease, compared with fluconazole, in children and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to new study findings.

National Institutes of Health/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

The results suggest caspofungin may be an appropriate prophylactic strategy to prevent invasive fungal disease in younger patients with newly diagnosed AML, reported Brian T. Fisher, DO, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA.

The randomized, open-label study included 517 children, adolescents, and young adults with de novo, relapsed, or secondary AML. Study patients received treatment in 115 centers throughout United States and Canada. The median age of patients in the study was 9 years (range, 0-26 years); 56% were male and approximately 69% were white.

Study subjects were randomly assigned to receive antifungal prophylaxis with 70 mg/m² (maximum dose 70 mg/day) of intravenous caspofungin on day 1, followed by 50 mg/m² per day (maximum dose 50 mg/day) thereafter, or age-dosed intravenous or oral fluconazole.

Prophylactic therapy was initiated 24-72 hours after the completion of each chemotherapy cycle, and was maintained until the end of the neutropenic period following each cycle.

At 5-month follow-up, the cumulative incidence rate of probable or proven invasive fungal disease was 3.1% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-7.0%) in the caspofungin arm, compared with 7.2% (95% CI, 4.4%-11.8%) in the fluconazole arm (overall P = .03).

In addition, the 5-month cumulative incidence rate of probable or proven invasive aspergillosis infection was 0.5% (95%CI, 0.1%-3.5%) in patients who received caspofungin, compared with 3.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-6.9%) in patients who received fluconazole (overall P = .046).

“No statistically significant differences in empirical antifungal therapy or 2-year overall survival were observed,” they reported.

With respect to safety, the most frequently reported adverse events were hypokalemia (22 events in the caspofungin arm vs. 13 in the fluconazole arm), respiratory failure (6 events in the caspofungin arm vs. 9 in the fluconazole arm), and elevated alanine transaminase (4 events in the caspofungin arm vs. 8 in the fluconazole arm).

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was the short duration of follow-up. As a result, the precision of some comparative measures may have been reduced.

The National Cancer Institute funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with Astellas, Celgene, Leadiant Biosciences, Merck, Nabriva Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Shire, and T2 Biosystems.

SOURCE: Fisher BT et al. JAMA. 2019;322(17):1673-81.

Antifungal prophylaxis with caspofungin led to a lower incidence of invasive fungal disease, compared with fluconazole, in children and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to new study findings.

National Institutes of Health/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

The results suggest caspofungin may be an appropriate prophylactic strategy to prevent invasive fungal disease in younger patients with newly diagnosed AML, reported Brian T. Fisher, DO, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA.

The randomized, open-label study included 517 children, adolescents, and young adults with de novo, relapsed, or secondary AML. Study patients received treatment in 115 centers throughout United States and Canada. The median age of patients in the study was 9 years (range, 0-26 years); 56% were male and approximately 69% were white.

Study subjects were randomly assigned to receive antifungal prophylaxis with 70 mg/m² (maximum dose 70 mg/day) of intravenous caspofungin on day 1, followed by 50 mg/m² per day (maximum dose 50 mg/day) thereafter, or age-dosed intravenous or oral fluconazole.

Prophylactic therapy was initiated 24-72 hours after the completion of each chemotherapy cycle, and was maintained until the end of the neutropenic period following each cycle.

At 5-month follow-up, the cumulative incidence rate of probable or proven invasive fungal disease was 3.1% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-7.0%) in the caspofungin arm, compared with 7.2% (95% CI, 4.4%-11.8%) in the fluconazole arm (overall P = .03).

In addition, the 5-month cumulative incidence rate of probable or proven invasive aspergillosis infection was 0.5% (95%CI, 0.1%-3.5%) in patients who received caspofungin, compared with 3.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-6.9%) in patients who received fluconazole (overall P = .046).

“No statistically significant differences in empirical antifungal therapy or 2-year overall survival were observed,” they reported.

With respect to safety, the most frequently reported adverse events were hypokalemia (22 events in the caspofungin arm vs. 13 in the fluconazole arm), respiratory failure (6 events in the caspofungin arm vs. 9 in the fluconazole arm), and elevated alanine transaminase (4 events in the caspofungin arm vs. 8 in the fluconazole arm).

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was the short duration of follow-up. As a result, the precision of some comparative measures may have been reduced.

The National Cancer Institute funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with Astellas, Celgene, Leadiant Biosciences, Merck, Nabriva Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Shire, and T2 Biosystems.

SOURCE: Fisher BT et al. JAMA. 2019;322(17):1673-81.

Antifungal prophylaxis with caspofungin led to a lower incidence of invasive fungal disease, compared with fluconazole, in children and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to new study findings.

National Institutes of Health/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

The results suggest caspofungin may be an appropriate prophylactic strategy to prevent invasive fungal disease in younger patients with newly diagnosed AML, reported Brian T. Fisher, DO, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA.

The randomized, open-label study included 517 children, adolescents, and young adults with de novo, relapsed, or secondary AML. Study patients received treatment in 115 centers throughout United States and Canada. The median age of patients in the study was 9 years (range, 0-26 years); 56% were male and approximately 69% were white.

Study subjects were randomly assigned to receive antifungal prophylaxis with 70 mg/m² (maximum dose 70 mg/day) of intravenous caspofungin on day 1, followed by 50 mg/m² per day (maximum dose 50 mg/day) thereafter, or age-dosed intravenous or oral fluconazole.

Prophylactic therapy was initiated 24-72 hours after the completion of each chemotherapy cycle, and was maintained until the end of the neutropenic period following each cycle.

At 5-month follow-up, the cumulative incidence rate of probable or proven invasive fungal disease was 3.1% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-7.0%) in the caspofungin arm, compared with 7.2% (95% CI, 4.4%-11.8%) in the fluconazole arm (overall P = .03).

In addition, the 5-month cumulative incidence rate of probable or proven invasive aspergillosis infection was 0.5% (95%CI, 0.1%-3.5%) in patients who received caspofungin, compared with 3.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-6.9%) in patients who received fluconazole (overall P = .046).

“No statistically significant differences in empirical antifungal therapy or 2-year overall survival were observed,” they reported.

With respect to safety, the most frequently reported adverse events were hypokalemia (22 events in the caspofungin arm vs. 13 in the fluconazole arm), respiratory failure (6 events in the caspofungin arm vs. 9 in the fluconazole arm), and elevated alanine transaminase (4 events in the caspofungin arm vs. 8 in the fluconazole arm).

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was the short duration of follow-up. As a result, the precision of some comparative measures may have been reduced.

The National Cancer Institute funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with Astellas, Celgene, Leadiant Biosciences, Merck, Nabriva Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Shire, and T2 Biosystems.

SOURCE: Fisher BT et al. JAMA. 2019;322(17):1673-81.

Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.

Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.

At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).

With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).

“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.

One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.

“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.

Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.

Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.

At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).

With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).

“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.

One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.

“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.

Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.

Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.

At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).

With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).

“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.

One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.

“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.