User login
FDA Approves First Engineered Cell Therapy for a Solid Tumor
Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.
The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.
Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities.
“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”
T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors.
The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew.
According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.
“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.
The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.
The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.
The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.
The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.
The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.
Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities.
“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”
T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors.
The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew.
According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.
“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.
The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.
The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.
The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.
The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.
The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.
Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities.
“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”
T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors.
The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew.
According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.
“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.
The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.
The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.
The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.
The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Immunotherapy May Be Overused in Dying Patients With Cancer
Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.
Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place.
This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.
What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
The N-of-1 Patient
With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.
The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.
Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”
At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”
This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
Back to Earth
The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.
Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.
She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.
Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.
Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.
And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.
In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
Prescribing Decisions
Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.
Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.
Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.
Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.
Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.
Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.
More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.
The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.
Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.
To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”
While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.
As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.
Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.
“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.
“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.
At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.
Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”
Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.
“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”
Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.
Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place.
This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.
What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
The N-of-1 Patient
With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.
The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.
Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”
At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”
This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
Back to Earth
The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.
Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.
She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.
Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.
Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.
And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.
In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
Prescribing Decisions
Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.
Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.
Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.
Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.
Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.
Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.
More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.
The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.
Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.
To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”
While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.
As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.
Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.
“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.
“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.
At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.
Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”
Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.
“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”
Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.
Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place.
This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.
What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
The N-of-1 Patient
With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.
The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.
Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”
At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”
This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
Back to Earth
The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.
Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.
She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.
Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.
Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.
And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.
In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
Prescribing Decisions
Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.
Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.
Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.
Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.
Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.
Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.
More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.
The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.
Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.
To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”
While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.
As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.
Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.
“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.
“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.
At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.
Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”
Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.
“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”
Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Can Addressing Depression Reduce Chemo Toxicity in Older Adults?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
- A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
- Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
- Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
- The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.
TAKEAWAY:
- According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
- The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
- No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
- The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
- An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.
IN PRACTICE:
“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”
SOURCE:
Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.
DISCLOSURES:
This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
- A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
- Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
- Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
- The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.
TAKEAWAY:
- According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
- The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
- No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
- The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
- An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.
IN PRACTICE:
“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”
SOURCE:
Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.
DISCLOSURES:
This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
- A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
- Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
- Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
- The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.
TAKEAWAY:
- According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
- The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
- No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
- The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
- An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.
IN PRACTICE:
“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”
SOURCE:
Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.
DISCLOSURES:
This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Artera Launches AI Test for Decision-Making on Prostate Cancer Treatment Course
Artera, the Los Altos, California–based developer of tools to diagnose cancer, has launched the first artificial intelligence (AI) test to guide patients in making informed decisions between active surveillance and active treatment based on an analysis of digital pathology images.
Trevor Royce, MD, MPH, senior medical director of Artera, said the new version of the ArteraAI Prostate Test helps patients with low-risk (Grade Group 1/Gleason 6) to favorable intermediate-risk (Grade Group 2/Gleason 3+4) prostate cancer choose between treatment or active surveillance.
The test estimates how a patient’s cancer may progress and predicts the benefit of treatment for localized prostate cancer.
“The prognostic performance of the test has now been validated in a diverse cohort of patients, including those who have undergone active surveillance, radiation therapy, or had a radical prostatectomy,” said Dr. Royce, a faculty member in radiation oncology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “The prognostic risk result reflects the patient’s prognosis regardless of the treatment path chosen.”
Dr. Royce said the new test predicts the risk for developing distant metastasis in 10 years. For the population considering active surveillance, it also can predict the likelihood their cancer will show more aggressive features. The test does not make a clinical recommendation, he added.
“Ultimately, that’s a very personal decision between the patient and their physician, and we view it as supporting that decision-making process,” he said.
The test is available in all states but New York and California, where the company is now, in discussions with regulators for approval, according to Dr. Royce. He said the company is in discussion with private insurers to set reimbursement and payment rates. In January 2024, Medicare set a payment rate of $700 for the AI test, which carries no out-of-pocket costs for patients.
The first indication for the test was for localized prostate cancer, prognosticating the risk for distant metastases and death from prostate cancer. It can also predict if an individual will benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dr. Royce said up to 60% of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer now can avoid ADT and its serious side effects, such as brain fog, weight gain, and reduction in muscle mass.
In March, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of 33 cancer centers included Artera as the first AI test in its Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.
Dr. Royce said active surveillance is a new application of the test. The test was initially developed on a foundational study of almost 22,000 pathology slides from nearly 7000 patients published in npj Digital Medicine in 2022.
Todd Morgan, MD, chief of the Division of Urologic Oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the foundational study, said the AI test adds another layer of data to making clinical decisions for lower-risk patients.
“The technology is a big deal. The ability to use digital images to make accurate prognostic estimates is pretty remarkable, and this is the first test in any disease site to do this,” Dr. Morgan said. “Ultimately, this means tests may someday be performed by just sending images rather than sending actual tissue to an outside laboratory. Is the AI test dramatically more accurate than the genomic platforms? That’s TBD [to be determined].”
Dr. Royce said Artera is now working on a version of its test to inform men with higher-risk prostate cancer how long ADT should last and what the prognosis is for patients who have undergone prostatectomy based on their surgical specimen. The current test uses samples from the prostate biopsy, which are processed in a central lab.
Dr. Royce said the company would like to eventually perform the test using digital images of pathology slides only.
Dr. Morgan reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Artera, the Los Altos, California–based developer of tools to diagnose cancer, has launched the first artificial intelligence (AI) test to guide patients in making informed decisions between active surveillance and active treatment based on an analysis of digital pathology images.
Trevor Royce, MD, MPH, senior medical director of Artera, said the new version of the ArteraAI Prostate Test helps patients with low-risk (Grade Group 1/Gleason 6) to favorable intermediate-risk (Grade Group 2/Gleason 3+4) prostate cancer choose between treatment or active surveillance.
The test estimates how a patient’s cancer may progress and predicts the benefit of treatment for localized prostate cancer.
“The prognostic performance of the test has now been validated in a diverse cohort of patients, including those who have undergone active surveillance, radiation therapy, or had a radical prostatectomy,” said Dr. Royce, a faculty member in radiation oncology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “The prognostic risk result reflects the patient’s prognosis regardless of the treatment path chosen.”
Dr. Royce said the new test predicts the risk for developing distant metastasis in 10 years. For the population considering active surveillance, it also can predict the likelihood their cancer will show more aggressive features. The test does not make a clinical recommendation, he added.
“Ultimately, that’s a very personal decision between the patient and their physician, and we view it as supporting that decision-making process,” he said.
The test is available in all states but New York and California, where the company is now, in discussions with regulators for approval, according to Dr. Royce. He said the company is in discussion with private insurers to set reimbursement and payment rates. In January 2024, Medicare set a payment rate of $700 for the AI test, which carries no out-of-pocket costs for patients.
The first indication for the test was for localized prostate cancer, prognosticating the risk for distant metastases and death from prostate cancer. It can also predict if an individual will benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dr. Royce said up to 60% of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer now can avoid ADT and its serious side effects, such as brain fog, weight gain, and reduction in muscle mass.
In March, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of 33 cancer centers included Artera as the first AI test in its Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.
Dr. Royce said active surveillance is a new application of the test. The test was initially developed on a foundational study of almost 22,000 pathology slides from nearly 7000 patients published in npj Digital Medicine in 2022.
Todd Morgan, MD, chief of the Division of Urologic Oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the foundational study, said the AI test adds another layer of data to making clinical decisions for lower-risk patients.
“The technology is a big deal. The ability to use digital images to make accurate prognostic estimates is pretty remarkable, and this is the first test in any disease site to do this,” Dr. Morgan said. “Ultimately, this means tests may someday be performed by just sending images rather than sending actual tissue to an outside laboratory. Is the AI test dramatically more accurate than the genomic platforms? That’s TBD [to be determined].”
Dr. Royce said Artera is now working on a version of its test to inform men with higher-risk prostate cancer how long ADT should last and what the prognosis is for patients who have undergone prostatectomy based on their surgical specimen. The current test uses samples from the prostate biopsy, which are processed in a central lab.
Dr. Royce said the company would like to eventually perform the test using digital images of pathology slides only.
Dr. Morgan reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Artera, the Los Altos, California–based developer of tools to diagnose cancer, has launched the first artificial intelligence (AI) test to guide patients in making informed decisions between active surveillance and active treatment based on an analysis of digital pathology images.
Trevor Royce, MD, MPH, senior medical director of Artera, said the new version of the ArteraAI Prostate Test helps patients with low-risk (Grade Group 1/Gleason 6) to favorable intermediate-risk (Grade Group 2/Gleason 3+4) prostate cancer choose between treatment or active surveillance.
The test estimates how a patient’s cancer may progress and predicts the benefit of treatment for localized prostate cancer.
“The prognostic performance of the test has now been validated in a diverse cohort of patients, including those who have undergone active surveillance, radiation therapy, or had a radical prostatectomy,” said Dr. Royce, a faculty member in radiation oncology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “The prognostic risk result reflects the patient’s prognosis regardless of the treatment path chosen.”
Dr. Royce said the new test predicts the risk for developing distant metastasis in 10 years. For the population considering active surveillance, it also can predict the likelihood their cancer will show more aggressive features. The test does not make a clinical recommendation, he added.
“Ultimately, that’s a very personal decision between the patient and their physician, and we view it as supporting that decision-making process,” he said.
The test is available in all states but New York and California, where the company is now, in discussions with regulators for approval, according to Dr. Royce. He said the company is in discussion with private insurers to set reimbursement and payment rates. In January 2024, Medicare set a payment rate of $700 for the AI test, which carries no out-of-pocket costs for patients.
The first indication for the test was for localized prostate cancer, prognosticating the risk for distant metastases and death from prostate cancer. It can also predict if an individual will benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dr. Royce said up to 60% of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer now can avoid ADT and its serious side effects, such as brain fog, weight gain, and reduction in muscle mass.
In March, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of 33 cancer centers included Artera as the first AI test in its Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.
Dr. Royce said active surveillance is a new application of the test. The test was initially developed on a foundational study of almost 22,000 pathology slides from nearly 7000 patients published in npj Digital Medicine in 2022.
Todd Morgan, MD, chief of the Division of Urologic Oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the foundational study, said the AI test adds another layer of data to making clinical decisions for lower-risk patients.
“The technology is a big deal. The ability to use digital images to make accurate prognostic estimates is pretty remarkable, and this is the first test in any disease site to do this,” Dr. Morgan said. “Ultimately, this means tests may someday be performed by just sending images rather than sending actual tissue to an outside laboratory. Is the AI test dramatically more accurate than the genomic platforms? That’s TBD [to be determined].”
Dr. Royce said Artera is now working on a version of its test to inform men with higher-risk prostate cancer how long ADT should last and what the prognosis is for patients who have undergone prostatectomy based on their surgical specimen. The current test uses samples from the prostate biopsy, which are processed in a central lab.
Dr. Royce said the company would like to eventually perform the test using digital images of pathology slides only.
Dr. Morgan reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Last 30 Days: How Oncologists’ Choices Affect End-of-Life Cancer Care
TOPLINE:
Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
- A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
- Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
- The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
- Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.
TAKEAWAY:
- Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
- Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
- Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
- No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
- A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
- Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
- The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
- Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.
TAKEAWAY:
- Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
- Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
- Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
- No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
- A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
- Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
- The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
- Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.
TAKEAWAY:
- Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
- Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
- Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
- No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ancient Viruses in Our DNA Hold Clues to Cancer Treatment
according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.
The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)
Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.
But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.
Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.
Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.
The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.
Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.
“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”
Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.
The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.
Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.
“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.
“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.
“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.
Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.
More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.
The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)
Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.
But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.
Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.
Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.
The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.
Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.
“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”
Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.
The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.
Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.
“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.
“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.
“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.
Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.
More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.
The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)
Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.
But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.
Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.
Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.
The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.
Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.
“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”
Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.
The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.
Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.
“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.
“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.
“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.
Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.
More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SCIENCE ADVANCES
Baseline Bone Pain Predicts Survival in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Prostate cancer often metastasizes to the bones, leading to pain and a reduced quality of life. While the relationship between bone pain and overall survival in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer is well-documented, its impact in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is less clear.
- Researchers conducted a post hoc secondary analysis using data from the SWOG-1216 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1279 men diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from 248 centers across the United States. Patients had received androgen deprivation therapy either with orteronel or bicalutamide.
- Among the 1197 patients (median age, 67.6 years) with data on bone pain included in the secondary analysis, 301 (23.5%) reported bone pain at baseline.
- The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response.
TAKEAWAY:
- The median overall survival for patients with baseline bone pain was 3.9 years compared with not reached (95% CI, 6.6 years to not reached) for those without bone pain at a median follow-up of 4 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.66; P < .001).
- Similarly, patients with bone pain had a shorter progression-free survival vs those without bone pain (median, 1.3 years vs 3.7 years; aHR, 1.46; P < .001).
- The complete prostate-specific antigen response rate at 7 months was also lower for patients with baseline bone pain (46.3% vs 66.3%; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer “with baseline bone pain had worse survival outcomes than those without baseline bone pain,” the authors wrote. “These results highlight the need to consider bone pain in prognostic modeling, treatment selection, patient monitoring, and follow-up and suggest prioritizing these patients for clinical trials and immediate systemic treatment initiation.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Georges Gebrael, MD, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The post hoc design may introduce bias. Orteronel failed to receive regulatory approval, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study did not account for synchronous vs metachronous disease status, a known established prognostic factor.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute and Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Takeda Oncology Company). Several authors declared ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Prostate cancer often metastasizes to the bones, leading to pain and a reduced quality of life. While the relationship between bone pain and overall survival in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer is well-documented, its impact in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is less clear.
- Researchers conducted a post hoc secondary analysis using data from the SWOG-1216 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1279 men diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from 248 centers across the United States. Patients had received androgen deprivation therapy either with orteronel or bicalutamide.
- Among the 1197 patients (median age, 67.6 years) with data on bone pain included in the secondary analysis, 301 (23.5%) reported bone pain at baseline.
- The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response.
TAKEAWAY:
- The median overall survival for patients with baseline bone pain was 3.9 years compared with not reached (95% CI, 6.6 years to not reached) for those without bone pain at a median follow-up of 4 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.66; P < .001).
- Similarly, patients with bone pain had a shorter progression-free survival vs those without bone pain (median, 1.3 years vs 3.7 years; aHR, 1.46; P < .001).
- The complete prostate-specific antigen response rate at 7 months was also lower for patients with baseline bone pain (46.3% vs 66.3%; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer “with baseline bone pain had worse survival outcomes than those without baseline bone pain,” the authors wrote. “These results highlight the need to consider bone pain in prognostic modeling, treatment selection, patient monitoring, and follow-up and suggest prioritizing these patients for clinical trials and immediate systemic treatment initiation.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Georges Gebrael, MD, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The post hoc design may introduce bias. Orteronel failed to receive regulatory approval, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study did not account for synchronous vs metachronous disease status, a known established prognostic factor.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute and Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Takeda Oncology Company). Several authors declared ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Prostate cancer often metastasizes to the bones, leading to pain and a reduced quality of life. While the relationship between bone pain and overall survival in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer is well-documented, its impact in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is less clear.
- Researchers conducted a post hoc secondary analysis using data from the SWOG-1216 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1279 men diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from 248 centers across the United States. Patients had received androgen deprivation therapy either with orteronel or bicalutamide.
- Among the 1197 patients (median age, 67.6 years) with data on bone pain included in the secondary analysis, 301 (23.5%) reported bone pain at baseline.
- The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response.
TAKEAWAY:
- The median overall survival for patients with baseline bone pain was 3.9 years compared with not reached (95% CI, 6.6 years to not reached) for those without bone pain at a median follow-up of 4 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.66; P < .001).
- Similarly, patients with bone pain had a shorter progression-free survival vs those without bone pain (median, 1.3 years vs 3.7 years; aHR, 1.46; P < .001).
- The complete prostate-specific antigen response rate at 7 months was also lower for patients with baseline bone pain (46.3% vs 66.3%; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer “with baseline bone pain had worse survival outcomes than those without baseline bone pain,” the authors wrote. “These results highlight the need to consider bone pain in prognostic modeling, treatment selection, patient monitoring, and follow-up and suggest prioritizing these patients for clinical trials and immediate systemic treatment initiation.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Georges Gebrael, MD, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The post hoc design may introduce bias. Orteronel failed to receive regulatory approval, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study did not account for synchronous vs metachronous disease status, a known established prognostic factor.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute and Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Takeda Oncology Company). Several authors declared ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Open Clinical Trials for Patients With Prostate Cancer
The clinical trials listed below are all open as of July 12, 2024; have ≥ 1 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center (VAMC) or US Department of Defense (DoD) military treatment facility location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatments for prostate cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.
Actively Recruiting
Patient Decision Making About Precision Oncology in Veterans With Advanced Prostate Cancer
This clinical trial explores and implements methods to improve informed decision making regarding precision oncology tests among veterans with prostate cancer that may have spread from where it first started to nearby tissue, lymph nodes, or distant parts of the body (advanced). Precision oncology, the use of germline genetic testing and tumor-based molecular assays to inform cancer care, has become an important aspect of evidence-based care for men with advanced prostate cancer. Veterans with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may not be carrying out informed decision making due to unmet decisional needs. An informed decision is a choice based on complete and accurate information. The information gained from this study will help researchers develop a decision support intervention and implement the intervention. A decision support intervention may serve as a valuable tool to reduce ongoing racial disparities in genetic testing and encourage enrollment to precision oncology trials.
ID: NCT05396872
Sponsor; Collaborator: University of California, San Francisco; DoD
Location: San Francisco VAMC
DeADT - Living Well With Prostate Cancer
The goal of this pilot randomized implementation trial is to compare 2 strategies to reduce low-value androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use for prostate cancer care. The aim of the study is to compare implementation of the 2 strategies: use of a clinical reminder order check intervention vs a clinician script/patient education approach, and their impacts on low-value ADT use after 6 months. The main goal of both interventions will be to decrease ADT overuse for patients with prostate cancer, but to do this in a way that is acceptable to the provider who treat these patients. Provider participants will engage with 1 of the interventions triggered in the electronic health record when their patients are deemed likely to receive low-value ADT. Provider participants receive only 1 intervention. The intervention is triggered for every clinic visit involving a patient deemed to be receiving low-value ADT, so provider participants may receive their assigned intervention multiple times. Researchers will compare provider use of both strategies to determine implementation outcomes and whether 1 was more effective in reducing low-value ADT use.
ID: NCT06199986
Sponsor; Collaborator: University of Michigan; VA, National Cancer Institute
Location: VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System
VA Seamless Phase II/III Randomized Trial of Standard Systemic Therapy With or Without PET-Directed Local Therapy for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer (VA STARPORT)
This is a prospective, open-label, multicenter, seamless phase II to phase III randomized clinical trial designed to compare somatostatin with or without positron emission tomography (PET)-directed local therapy in improving the castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival for veterans with oligometastatic prostate cancer. Oligometastasis will be defined as 1 to 10 sites of metastatic disease based on the clinical determination.
ID: NCT04787744
Sponsor; Investigators: VA Office of Research and Development; Abhishek Solani, MD, MS, Edward Hines Jr.
Locations: VA Long Beach Healthcare System, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Baltimore VAMC, VA Boston Healthcare System, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Kansas City VAMC, VA New Jersey Healthcare System, VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, Durham VAMC, Louis Stokes VAMC, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Clement J. Zablocki VAMC
The Prostate Cancer, Genetic Risk, and Equitable Screening Study (ProGRESS)
Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer among veterans and the second leading cause of male cancer death. Current methods of screening men for prostate cancer are inaccurate and cannot identify which men do not have prostate cancer or have low-grade cases that will not cause harm and which men have significant prostate cancer needing treatment. False-positive screening tests can result in unnecessary prostate biopsies for men who do not need them. However, new genetic testing might help identify which men are at highest risk for prostate cancer. This study will examine whether a genetic test helps identify men at risk for significant prostate cancer while helping men who are at low risk for prostate cancer avoid unnecessary biopsies. If this genetic test proves beneficial, it will improve the way that health care providers screen male veterans for prostate cancer.
ID: NCT05926102
Sponsor; Investigator: VA Office of Research and Development; Jason L. Vassy, MD, MPH
Location: VA Boston Healthcare System
Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS)
This research study is for men who have chosen active surveillance as a management plan for their prostate cancer. Active surveillance is defined as close monitoring of prostate cancer with the offer of treatment if there are changes in test results. This study seeks to discover markers that will identify cancers that are more aggressive from those tumors that grow slowly.
ID: NCT00756665
Sponsor; Collaborators: University of Washington; Canary Foundation, Early Detection Research Network
Locations: VA San Francisco Health Care System, VA Puget Sound Health Care System
A Study of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Men With Progressive Metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer Characterized by a Mismatch Repair Deficiency or Biallelic CDK12 Inactivation (CHOMP)
The primary objective is to assess the activity and efficacy of pembrolizumab, a checkpoint inhibitor, in veterans with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer characterized by either mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) or biallelic inactivation of CDK12 (CDK12-/-). The secondary objectives involve determining the frequency with which dMMR and CDK12-/- occur in this patient population, as well as the effects of pembrolizumab on various clinical endpoints (time to prostate-specific antigen progression, maximal prostate-specific antigen response, time to initiation of alternative antineoplastic therapy, time to radiographic progression, overall survival, and safety and tolerability). Lastly, the study will compare the pretreatment and at-progression metastatic tumor biopsies to investigate the molecular correlates of resistance and sensitivity to pembrolizumab via RNA-sequencing, exome-sequencing, selected protein analyses, and multiplexed immunofluorescence.
ID: NCT04104893
Sponsor; Collaborator: VA Office of Research and Development; Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
Locations: San Francisco VAMC, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Washington DC VAMC, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System Jesse Brown VAMC, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, James J. Peter VAMC, VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, Durham VAMC, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC, VA Puget Sound Health Care System
A Single-Arm Phase II Study of Neoadjuvant Intensified Androgen Deprivation (Leuprolideand Abiraterone Acetate) in Combination With AKT Inhibition (Capivasertib) for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer With PTEN Loss (SNARE)
The purpose of this study is to learn about how an investigational drug intervention completed before doing prostate surgery (specifically, radical prostatectomy with lymph node dissection) may help in the treatment of high-risk localized prostate cancers that are most resistant to standard treatments. This is a phase II research study. For this study, capivasertib, the study drug, will be taken with intensified androgen deprivation therapy drugs (iADT; abiraterone and leuprolide) prior to radical prostatectomy. This study drug treatment will be evaluated to see if it is effective in shrinking and destroying prostate cancer tumors prior to surgery and to further evaluate its safety prior to prostate cancer surgery.
ID: NCT05593497
Sponsor; Investigator: VA Office of Research and Development; Ryan P. Kopp, MD
Locations: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, James J. Peters VAMC, VA Portland Health Care System, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, VA Puget Sound Health Care System
Active, Not Recruiting
Intramuscular Mechanisms of Androgen Deprivation-related Sarcopenia
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and is even more common in the military and veteran population. For patients with advanced prostate cancer, the most common treatment includes androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or the lowering of the levels of the hormone testosterone as much as possible. Unfortunately, ADT also causes patients to be fatigued, weak, and to lose muscle. This is often referred to as “sarcopenia,” and it leads to falls, poor quality of life, and higher risk of death. Currently, there is no treatment for sarcopenia because the investigators do not understand the mechanisms that cause it. The mitochondria are part of the cells responsible for providing energy to muscles, but to this date, the investigators do not know if it is affected in prostate cancer patients with sarcopenia due to ADT.
ID: NCT03867357
Sponsor; Collaborators: Seattle Institute for Biomedical and Clinical Research; DoD, University of Washington
Location: VA Puget Sound Health Care System
Radiation Therapy With or Without Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in Treating Patients With Prostate Cancer
RATIONALE: Radiation therapy uses high-energy X-rays and other types of radiation to kill tumor cells and shrink tumors. Androgens can cause the growth of prostate cancer cells. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may lessen the amount of androgens made by the body. It is not yet known whether radiation therapy is more effective with or without ADT in treating patients with prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial is studying radiation therapy to see how well it works compared with radiation therapy given together with ADT in treating patients with prostate cancer.
ID: NCT00936390
Sponsor; Collaborators: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; National Cancer Institute, NRG Oncology
Locations: 518 locations, James A. Haley VA Hospital
Enzalutamide With or Without Abiraterone and Prednisone in Treating Patients With Castration-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer
This randomized phase III trial studies enzalutamide to see how well it works compared to enzalutamide, abiraterone, and prednisone in treating patients with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. Androgens can cause the growth of prostate cancer cells. Drugs, such as enzalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and prednisone, may lessen the amount of androgens made by the body.
ID: NCT01949337
Sponsor; Collaborators: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; NCI, Astellas Pharma US, Inc., Medivation, Inc., Biologics, Inc.
Locations: 539 locations, including VA Connecticut Healthcare System
S1216, Phase III ADT+TAK-700 vs ADT+Bicalutamide for Metastatic Prostate Cancer (S1216)
The purpose of this study is to compare overall survival in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer patients randomly assigned to ADT + TAK-700 vs androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + bicalutamide.
ID: NCT01809691
Sponsor; Collaborators: SWOG Cancer Research Network; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., NCI
Locations: 560 locations, including VA New York Harbor Healthcare System
Androgen Ablation Therapy With or Without Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED)
RATIONALE: Androgens can cause the growth of prostate cancer cells. Androgen ablation therapy may stop the adrenal glands from making androgens. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as docetaxel, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. It is not yet known whether androgen-ablation therapy is more effective with or without docetaxel in treating metastatic prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial is studying androgen ablation therapy and chemotherapy to see how well they work compared to androgen ablation therapy alone in treating patients with metastatic prostate cancer.
ID: NCT00309985
Sponsor; Collaborator: ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group; NCI
Locations: 343 locations, including Mather VAMC
Not Yet Recruiting
biraterone, Enzalutamide, or Apalutamide in Castrate-Sensitive Prostate Cancer
The investigators have used national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data to demonstrate real-world efficacy of abiraterone and enzalutamide in veterans with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. In the real world that is the VHA, the investigators have successfully estimated g values that accurately predict overall survival, and the use of this metric in other settings should now be explored. In the egalitarian system that is the VHA, the treatment of prostate cancer is excellent, uniform across the US and indifferent to race. The choices made are clearly personalized, given not all men received all therapies, and younger veterans were treated more aggressively.
ID: NCT05422911
Sponsor: James J. Peters VAMC
Location: James J. Peters VAMC
18F-DCFPyL PET/CT Impact on Treatment Strategies for Patients With Prostate Cancer (PROSPYL)
The main purpose of this phase II trial study is to determine whether a positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan using 18F-DCFPyL affects the clinical management plan in veterans. In this study, the management plan prior to and after 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT will be recorded by specific questionnaires, and corresponding changes in management will be analyzed. The scan will be used to see how the disease has spread. Both the treatment strategies and probable disease outcomes as relevant to clinical endpoints will be assessed. This study is open to veterans only.
ID: NCT04390880
Sponsor, Investigator: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System; Gholam Berenji, MD
Location: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System
18F-DCFPyL PET-CT Scan and Prostate Cancer
The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of 18F-DCFPyL PET-CT for initial staging of prostate cancer in veterans compared to conventional imaging (99mTc-MDP bone scan and diagnostic CT or MRI). The primary clinical endpoint of our study is the percentage of veterans with prostate cancer in which the 18F-DCFPyL PET-CT identifies M1 disease at initial staging. Secondary objectives included frequency of the change in primary treatment plan after initial staging.
ID: NCT03852654
Sponsor, Investigator: Lida Jafari, MD
Location: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System
Neoadjuvant Therapy With Docetaxel and Ketoconazole in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Pilot Study (IST 16167)
Eligible patients with high-risk prostate cancer who are scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy will receive 4 cycles of therapy with ketoconazole and docetaxel prior to surgery resection. A cycle of therapy is defined as 21 days (3 weeks). Pharmacokinetic analysis will be performed during the first and second cycles of therapy. All patients will be evaluated for toxicity, tumor response, and recurrence.
ID: NCT00870714
Sponsor, Collaborator: Kansas City VAMC; Sanofi
Location: Kansas City VAMC
A Study of Epirubicin With Estramustine Phosphate and Celecoxib for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer
The purpose of this clinical trial is to find out the effect of epirubicin with estramustine phosphate and celecoxib on PSA and objective response in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer, as well as to evaluate the toxicity and quality of life of this combination. Celecoxib is an FDA-approved drug that treats arthritis. Epirubicin, alone or with estramustine phosphate, has been used in the treatment of hormone-resistant prostate cancer. These drugs have demonstrated evidence of tumor blood vessel suppression and a combination of these 3 drugs could possibly arrest further tumor growth or even make the tumor decrease in size.
ID: NCT00218205
Sponsor, Collaborator; Investigator: VA New Jersey Health Care System; Pfizer; Basil Kasimis, MD
Location: VA New Jersey Health Care System
A Phase II Trial of Combination Therapy With Celecoxib and Taxotere for the Treatment of Stage D3 Prostate Cancer
The purpose of this clinical trial is to find out the safety and effectiveness as well as the patient’s quality of life while taking the combination of Taxotere and celecoxib on patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer. Celecoxib (Celebrex) is an FDA-approved drug that treats arthritis. Taxotere (Docetaxel) is an FDA-approved chemotherapy drug to treat certain forms of cancer. Both drugs have demonstrated evidences of tumor blood vessel suppression and combination of these 2 drugs could possibly arrest further tumor growth or make the tumor decrease in size.
ID: NCT00215345
Sponsor, Collaborator; Investigator: Department of Veterans Affairs, New Jersey; Pfizer, Sanofi; Basil Kasimis, MD
Location: VA New Jersey Health Care System
A Yoga Program for Patients Undergoing Prostate Cancer Surgery
Men with localized prostate cancer are often treated with surgery, a treatment that is associated with high rates of adverse effects such as erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI) which impact quality of life. Yoga may improve control of UI and improve ED by bringing awareness to and strengthening the pelvic floor musculature. The randomized controlled pilot study is to assess the feasibility of an innovative hybrid (in-person and virtual) twice-weekly yoga program that includes a prehabilitation component and to obtain preliminary data that will help assess its potential effectiveness in alleviating prostate cancer treatment symptom burden (primarily ED and UI). The long-term goal is to develop a scalable and sustainable yoga program that helps cancer survivors manage their treatment side effects.
ID: NCT05929300
Sponsor, Investigator: VA Office of Research and Development; Abigail Silva, PhD, MPH
Location: Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital
The clinical trials listed below are all open as of July 12, 2024; have ≥ 1 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center (VAMC) or US Department of Defense (DoD) military treatment facility location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatments for prostate cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.
Actively Recruiting
Patient Decision Making About Precision Oncology in Veterans With Advanced Prostate Cancer
This clinical trial explores and implements methods to improve informed decision making regarding precision oncology tests among veterans with prostate cancer that may have spread from where it first started to nearby tissue, lymph nodes, or distant parts of the body (advanced). Precision oncology, the use of germline genetic testing and tumor-based molecular assays to inform cancer care, has become an important aspect of evidence-based care for men with advanced prostate cancer. Veterans with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may not be carrying out informed decision making due to unmet decisional needs. An informed decision is a choice based on complete and accurate information. The information gained from this study will help researchers develop a decision support intervention and implement the intervention. A decision support intervention may serve as a valuable tool to reduce ongoing racial disparities in genetic testing and encourage enrollment to precision oncology trials.
ID: NCT05396872
Sponsor; Collaborator: University of California, San Francisco; DoD
Location: San Francisco VAMC
DeADT - Living Well With Prostate Cancer
The goal of this pilot randomized implementation trial is to compare 2 strategies to reduce low-value androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use for prostate cancer care. The aim of the study is to compare implementation of the 2 strategies: use of a clinical reminder order check intervention vs a clinician script/patient education approach, and their impacts on low-value ADT use after 6 months. The main goal of both interventions will be to decrease ADT overuse for patients with prostate cancer, but to do this in a way that is acceptable to the provider who treat these patients. Provider participants will engage with 1 of the interventions triggered in the electronic health record when their patients are deemed likely to receive low-value ADT. Provider participants receive only 1 intervention. The intervention is triggered for every clinic visit involving a patient deemed to be receiving low-value ADT, so provider participants may receive their assigned intervention multiple times. Researchers will compare provider use of both strategies to determine implementation outcomes and whether 1 was more effective in reducing low-value ADT use.
ID: NCT06199986
Sponsor; Collaborator: University of Michigan; VA, National Cancer Institute
Location: VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System
VA Seamless Phase II/III Randomized Trial of Standard Systemic Therapy With or Without PET-Directed Local Therapy for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer (VA STARPORT)
This is a prospective, open-label, multicenter, seamless phase II to phase III randomized clinical trial designed to compare somatostatin with or without positron emission tomography (PET)-directed local therapy in improving the castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival for veterans with oligometastatic prostate cancer. Oligometastasis will be defined as 1 to 10 sites of metastatic disease based on the clinical determination.
ID: NCT04787744
Sponsor; Investigators: VA Office of Research and Development; Abhishek Solani, MD, MS, Edward Hines Jr.
Locations: VA Long Beach Healthcare System, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Baltimore VAMC, VA Boston Healthcare System, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Kansas City VAMC, VA New Jersey Healthcare System, VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, Durham VAMC, Louis Stokes VAMC, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Clement J. Zablocki VAMC
The Prostate Cancer, Genetic Risk, and Equitable Screening Study (ProGRESS)
Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer among veterans and the second leading cause of male cancer death. Current methods of screening men for prostate cancer are inaccurate and cannot identify which men do not have prostate cancer or have low-grade cases that will not cause harm and which men have significant prostate cancer needing treatment. False-positive screening tests can result in unnecessary prostate biopsies for men who do not need them. However, new genetic testing might help identify which men are at highest risk for prostate cancer. This study will examine whether a genetic test helps identify men at risk for significant prostate cancer while helping men who are at low risk for prostate cancer avoid unnecessary biopsies. If this genetic test proves beneficial, it will improve the way that health care providers screen male veterans for prostate cancer.
ID: NCT05926102
Sponsor; Investigator: VA Office of Research and Development; Jason L. Vassy, MD, MPH
Location: VA Boston Healthcare System
Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS)
This research study is for men who have chosen active surveillance as a management plan for their prostate cancer. Active surveillance is defined as close monitoring of prostate cancer with the offer of treatment if there are changes in test results. This study seeks to discover markers that will identify cancers that are more aggressive from those tumors that grow slowly.
ID: NCT00756665
Sponsor; Collaborators: University of Washington; Canary Foundation, Early Detection Research Network
Locations: VA San Francisco Health Care System, VA Puget Sound Health Care System
A Study of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Men With Progressive Metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer Characterized by a Mismatch Repair Deficiency or Biallelic CDK12 Inactivation (CHOMP)
The primary objective is to assess the activity and efficacy of pembrolizumab, a checkpoint inhibitor, in veterans with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer characterized by either mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) or biallelic inactivation of CDK12 (CDK12-/-). The secondary objectives involve determining the frequency with which dMMR and CDK12-/- occur in this patient population, as well as the effects of pembrolizumab on various clinical endpoints (time to prostate-specific antigen progression, maximal prostate-specific antigen response, time to initiation of alternative antineoplastic therapy, time to radiographic progression, overall survival, and safety and tolerability). Lastly, the study will compare the pretreatment and at-progression metastatic tumor biopsies to investigate the molecular correlates of resistance and sensitivity to pembrolizumab via RNA-sequencing, exome-sequencing, selected protein analyses, and multiplexed immunofluorescence.
ID: NCT04104893
Sponsor; Collaborator: VA Office of Research and Development; Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
Locations: San Francisco VAMC, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Washington DC VAMC, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System Jesse Brown VAMC, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, James J. Peter VAMC, VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, Durham VAMC, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC, VA Puget Sound Health Care System
A Single-Arm Phase II Study of Neoadjuvant Intensified Androgen Deprivation (Leuprolideand Abiraterone Acetate) in Combination With AKT Inhibition (Capivasertib) for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer With PTEN Loss (SNARE)
The purpose of this study is to learn about how an investigational drug intervention completed before doing prostate surgery (specifically, radical prostatectomy with lymph node dissection) may help in the treatment of high-risk localized prostate cancers that are most resistant to standard treatments. This is a phase II research study. For this study, capivasertib, the study drug, will be taken with intensified androgen deprivation therapy drugs (iADT; abiraterone and leuprolide) prior to radical prostatectomy. This study drug treatment will be evaluated to see if it is effective in shrinking and destroying prostate cancer tumors prior to surgery and to further evaluate its safety prior to prostate cancer surgery.
ID: NCT05593497
Sponsor; Investigator: VA Office of Research and Development; Ryan P. Kopp, MD
Locations: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, James J. Peters VAMC, VA Portland Health Care System, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, VA Puget Sound Health Care System
Active, Not Recruiting
Intramuscular Mechanisms of Androgen Deprivation-related Sarcopenia
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and is even more common in the military and veteran population. For patients with advanced prostate cancer, the most common treatment includes androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or the lowering of the levels of the hormone testosterone as much as possible. Unfortunately, ADT also causes patients to be fatigued, weak, and to lose muscle. This is often referred to as “sarcopenia,” and it leads to falls, poor quality of life, and higher risk of death. Currently, there is no treatment for sarcopenia because the investigators do not understand the mechanisms that cause it. The mitochondria are part of the cells responsible for providing energy to muscles, but to this date, the investigators do not know if it is affected in prostate cancer patients with sarcopenia due to ADT.
ID: NCT03867357
Sponsor; Collaborators: Seattle Institute for Biomedical and Clinical Research; DoD, University of Washington
Location: VA Puget Sound Health Care System
Radiation Therapy With or Without Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in Treating Patients With Prostate Cancer
RATIONALE: Radiation therapy uses high-energy X-rays and other types of radiation to kill tumor cells and shrink tumors. Androgens can cause the growth of prostate cancer cells. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may lessen the amount of androgens made by the body. It is not yet known whether radiation therapy is more effective with or without ADT in treating patients with prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial is studying radiation therapy to see how well it works compared with radiation therapy given together with ADT in treating patients with prostate cancer.
ID: NCT00936390
Sponsor; Collaborators: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; National Cancer Institute, NRG Oncology
Locations: 518 locations, James A. Haley VA Hospital
Enzalutamide With or Without Abiraterone and Prednisone in Treating Patients With Castration-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer
This randomized phase III trial studies enzalutamide to see how well it works compared to enzalutamide, abiraterone, and prednisone in treating patients with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. Androgens can cause the growth of prostate cancer cells. Drugs, such as enzalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and prednisone, may lessen the amount of androgens made by the body.
ID: NCT01949337
Sponsor; Collaborators: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; NCI, Astellas Pharma US, Inc., Medivation, Inc., Biologics, Inc.
Locations: 539 locations, including VA Connecticut Healthcare System
S1216, Phase III ADT+TAK-700 vs ADT+Bicalutamide for Metastatic Prostate Cancer (S1216)
The purpose of this study is to compare overall survival in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer patients randomly assigned to ADT + TAK-700 vs androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + bicalutamide.
ID: NCT01809691
Sponsor; Collaborators: SWOG Cancer Research Network; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., NCI
Locations: 560 locations, including VA New York Harbor Healthcare System
Androgen Ablation Therapy With or Without Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED)
RATIONALE: Androgens can cause the growth of prostate cancer cells. Androgen ablation therapy may stop the adrenal glands from making androgens. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as docetaxel, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. It is not yet known whether androgen-ablation therapy is more effective with or without docetaxel in treating metastatic prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial is studying androgen ablation therapy and chemotherapy to see how well they work compared to androgen ablation therapy alone in treating patients with metastatic prostate cancer.
ID: NCT00309985
Sponsor; Collaborator: ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group; NCI
Locations: 343 locations, including Mather VAMC
Not Yet Recruiting
biraterone, Enzalutamide, or Apalutamide in Castrate-Sensitive Prostate Cancer
The investigators have used national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data to demonstrate real-world efficacy of abiraterone and enzalutamide in veterans with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. In the real world that is the VHA, the investigators have successfully estimated g values that accurately predict overall survival, and the use of this metric in other settings should now be explored. In the egalitarian system that is the VHA, the treatment of prostate cancer is excellent, uniform across the US and indifferent to race. The choices made are clearly personalized, given not all men received all therapies, and younger veterans were treated more aggressively.
ID: NCT05422911
Sponsor: James J. Peters VAMC
Location: James J. Peters VAMC
18F-DCFPyL PET/CT Impact on Treatment Strategies for Patients With Prostate Cancer (PROSPYL)
The main purpose of this phase II trial study is to determine whether a positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan using 18F-DCFPyL affects the clinical management plan in veterans. In this study, the management plan prior to and after 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT will be recorded by specific questionnaires, and corresponding changes in management will be analyzed. The scan will be used to see how the disease has spread. Both the treatment strategies and probable disease outcomes as relevant to clinical endpoints will be assessed. This study is open to veterans only.
ID: NCT04390880
Sponsor, Investigator: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System; Gholam Berenji, MD
Location: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System
18F-DCFPyL PET-CT Scan and Prostate Cancer
The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of 18F-DCFPyL PET-CT for initial staging of prostate cancer in veterans compared to conventional imaging (99mTc-MDP bone scan and diagnostic CT or MRI). The primary clinical endpoint of our study is the percentage of veterans with prostate cancer in which the 18F-DCFPyL PET-CT identifies M1 disease at initial staging. Secondary objectives included frequency of the change in primary treatment plan after initial staging.
ID: NCT03852654
Sponsor, Investigator: Lida Jafari, MD
Location: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System
Neoadjuvant Therapy With Docetaxel and Ketoconazole in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Pilot Study (IST 16167)
Eligible patients with high-risk prostate cancer who are scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy will receive 4 cycles of therapy with ketoconazole and docetaxel prior to surgery resection. A cycle of therapy is defined as 21 days (3 weeks). Pharmacokinetic analysis will be performed during the first and second cycles of therapy. All patients will be evaluated for toxicity, tumor response, and recurrence.
ID: NCT00870714
Sponsor, Collaborator: Kansas City VAMC; Sanofi
Location: Kansas City VAMC
A Study of Epirubicin With Estramustine Phosphate and Celecoxib for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer
The purpose of this clinical trial is to find out the effect of epirubicin with estramustine phosphate and celecoxib on PSA and objective response in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer, as well as to evaluate the toxicity and quality of life of this combination. Celecoxib is an FDA-approved drug that treats arthritis. Epirubicin, alone or with estramustine phosphate, has been used in the treatment of hormone-resistant prostate cancer. These drugs have demonstrated evidence of tumor blood vessel suppression and a combination of these 3 drugs could possibly arrest further tumor growth or even make the tumor decrease in size.
ID: NCT00218205
Sponsor, Collaborator; Investigator: VA New Jersey Health Care System; Pfizer; Basil Kasimis, MD
Location: VA New Jersey Health Care System
A Phase II Trial of Combination Therapy With Celecoxib and Taxotere for the Treatment of Stage D3 Prostate Cancer
The purpose of this clinical trial is to find out the safety and effectiveness as well as the patient’s quality of life while taking the combination of Taxotere and celecoxib on patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer. Celecoxib (Celebrex) is an FDA-approved drug that treats arthritis. Taxotere (Docetaxel) is an FDA-approved chemotherapy drug to treat certain forms of cancer. Both drugs have demonstrated evidences of tumor blood vessel suppression and combination of these 2 drugs could possibly arrest further tumor growth or make the tumor decrease in size.
ID: NCT00215345
Sponsor, Collaborator; Investigator: Department of Veterans Affairs, New Jersey; Pfizer, Sanofi; Basil Kasimis, MD
Location: VA New Jersey Health Care System
A Yoga Program for Patients Undergoing Prostate Cancer Surgery
Men with localized prostate cancer are often treated with surgery, a treatment that is associated with high rates of adverse effects such as erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI) which impact quality of life. Yoga may improve control of UI and improve ED by bringing awareness to and strengthening the pelvic floor musculature. The randomized controlled pilot study is to assess the feasibility of an innovative hybrid (in-person and virtual) twice-weekly yoga program that includes a prehabilitation component and to obtain preliminary data that will help assess its potential effectiveness in alleviating prostate cancer treatment symptom burden (primarily ED and UI). The long-term goal is to develop a scalable and sustainable yoga program that helps cancer survivors manage their treatment side effects.
ID: NCT05929300
Sponsor, Investigator: VA Office of Research and Development; Abigail Silva, PhD, MPH
Location: Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital
The clinical trials listed below are all open as of July 12, 2024; have ≥ 1 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center (VAMC) or US Department of Defense (DoD) military treatment facility location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatments for prostate cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.
Actively Recruiting
Patient Decision Making About Precision Oncology in Veterans With Advanced Prostate Cancer
This clinical trial explores and implements methods to improve informed decision making regarding precision oncology tests among veterans with prostate cancer that may have spread from where it first started to nearby tissue, lymph nodes, or distant parts of the body (advanced). Precision oncology, the use of germline genetic testing and tumor-based molecular assays to inform cancer care, has become an important aspect of evidence-based care for men with advanced prostate cancer. Veterans with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may not be carrying out informed decision making due to unmet decisional needs. An informed decision is a choice based on complete and accurate information. The information gained from this study will help researchers develop a decision support intervention and implement the intervention. A decision support intervention may serve as a valuable tool to reduce ongoing racial disparities in genetic testing and encourage enrollment to precision oncology trials.
ID: NCT05396872
Sponsor; Collaborator: University of California, San Francisco; DoD
Location: San Francisco VAMC
DeADT - Living Well With Prostate Cancer
The goal of this pilot randomized implementation trial is to compare 2 strategies to reduce low-value androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use for prostate cancer care. The aim of the study is to compare implementation of the 2 strategies: use of a clinical reminder order check intervention vs a clinician script/patient education approach, and their impacts on low-value ADT use after 6 months. The main goal of both interventions will be to decrease ADT overuse for patients with prostate cancer, but to do this in a way that is acceptable to the provider who treat these patients. Provider participants will engage with 1 of the interventions triggered in the electronic health record when their patients are deemed likely to receive low-value ADT. Provider participants receive only 1 intervention. The intervention is triggered for every clinic visit involving a patient deemed to be receiving low-value ADT, so provider participants may receive their assigned intervention multiple times. Researchers will compare provider use of both strategies to determine implementation outcomes and whether 1 was more effective in reducing low-value ADT use.
ID: NCT06199986
Sponsor; Collaborator: University of Michigan; VA, National Cancer Institute
Location: VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System
VA Seamless Phase II/III Randomized Trial of Standard Systemic Therapy With or Without PET-Directed Local Therapy for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer (VA STARPORT)
This is a prospective, open-label, multicenter, seamless phase II to phase III randomized clinical trial designed to compare somatostatin with or without positron emission tomography (PET)-directed local therapy in improving the castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival for veterans with oligometastatic prostate cancer. Oligometastasis will be defined as 1 to 10 sites of metastatic disease based on the clinical determination.
ID: NCT04787744
Sponsor; Investigators: VA Office of Research and Development; Abhishek Solani, MD, MS, Edward Hines Jr.
Locations: VA Long Beach Healthcare System, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Baltimore VAMC, VA Boston Healthcare System, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Kansas City VAMC, VA New Jersey Healthcare System, VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, Durham VAMC, Louis Stokes VAMC, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Clement J. Zablocki VAMC
The Prostate Cancer, Genetic Risk, and Equitable Screening Study (ProGRESS)
Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer among veterans and the second leading cause of male cancer death. Current methods of screening men for prostate cancer are inaccurate and cannot identify which men do not have prostate cancer or have low-grade cases that will not cause harm and which men have significant prostate cancer needing treatment. False-positive screening tests can result in unnecessary prostate biopsies for men who do not need them. However, new genetic testing might help identify which men are at highest risk for prostate cancer. This study will examine whether a genetic test helps identify men at risk for significant prostate cancer while helping men who are at low risk for prostate cancer avoid unnecessary biopsies. If this genetic test proves beneficial, it will improve the way that health care providers screen male veterans for prostate cancer.
ID: NCT05926102
Sponsor; Investigator: VA Office of Research and Development; Jason L. Vassy, MD, MPH
Location: VA Boston Healthcare System
Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS)
This research study is for men who have chosen active surveillance as a management plan for their prostate cancer. Active surveillance is defined as close monitoring of prostate cancer with the offer of treatment if there are changes in test results. This study seeks to discover markers that will identify cancers that are more aggressive from those tumors that grow slowly.
ID: NCT00756665
Sponsor; Collaborators: University of Washington; Canary Foundation, Early Detection Research Network
Locations: VA San Francisco Health Care System, VA Puget Sound Health Care System
A Study of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Men With Progressive Metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer Characterized by a Mismatch Repair Deficiency or Biallelic CDK12 Inactivation (CHOMP)
The primary objective is to assess the activity and efficacy of pembrolizumab, a checkpoint inhibitor, in veterans with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer characterized by either mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) or biallelic inactivation of CDK12 (CDK12-/-). The secondary objectives involve determining the frequency with which dMMR and CDK12-/- occur in this patient population, as well as the effects of pembrolizumab on various clinical endpoints (time to prostate-specific antigen progression, maximal prostate-specific antigen response, time to initiation of alternative antineoplastic therapy, time to radiographic progression, overall survival, and safety and tolerability). Lastly, the study will compare the pretreatment and at-progression metastatic tumor biopsies to investigate the molecular correlates of resistance and sensitivity to pembrolizumab via RNA-sequencing, exome-sequencing, selected protein analyses, and multiplexed immunofluorescence.
ID: NCT04104893
Sponsor; Collaborator: VA Office of Research and Development; Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
Locations: San Francisco VAMC, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Washington DC VAMC, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System Jesse Brown VAMC, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, James J. Peter VAMC, VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, Durham VAMC, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC, VA Puget Sound Health Care System
A Single-Arm Phase II Study of Neoadjuvant Intensified Androgen Deprivation (Leuprolideand Abiraterone Acetate) in Combination With AKT Inhibition (Capivasertib) for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer With PTEN Loss (SNARE)
The purpose of this study is to learn about how an investigational drug intervention completed before doing prostate surgery (specifically, radical prostatectomy with lymph node dissection) may help in the treatment of high-risk localized prostate cancers that are most resistant to standard treatments. This is a phase II research study. For this study, capivasertib, the study drug, will be taken with intensified androgen deprivation therapy drugs (iADT; abiraterone and leuprolide) prior to radical prostatectomy. This study drug treatment will be evaluated to see if it is effective in shrinking and destroying prostate cancer tumors prior to surgery and to further evaluate its safety prior to prostate cancer surgery.
ID: NCT05593497
Sponsor; Investigator: VA Office of Research and Development; Ryan P. Kopp, MD
Locations: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, James J. Peters VAMC, VA Portland Health Care System, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, VA Puget Sound Health Care System
Active, Not Recruiting
Intramuscular Mechanisms of Androgen Deprivation-related Sarcopenia
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and is even more common in the military and veteran population. For patients with advanced prostate cancer, the most common treatment includes androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or the lowering of the levels of the hormone testosterone as much as possible. Unfortunately, ADT also causes patients to be fatigued, weak, and to lose muscle. This is often referred to as “sarcopenia,” and it leads to falls, poor quality of life, and higher risk of death. Currently, there is no treatment for sarcopenia because the investigators do not understand the mechanisms that cause it. The mitochondria are part of the cells responsible for providing energy to muscles, but to this date, the investigators do not know if it is affected in prostate cancer patients with sarcopenia due to ADT.
ID: NCT03867357
Sponsor; Collaborators: Seattle Institute for Biomedical and Clinical Research; DoD, University of Washington
Location: VA Puget Sound Health Care System
Radiation Therapy With or Without Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in Treating Patients With Prostate Cancer
RATIONALE: Radiation therapy uses high-energy X-rays and other types of radiation to kill tumor cells and shrink tumors. Androgens can cause the growth of prostate cancer cells. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may lessen the amount of androgens made by the body. It is not yet known whether radiation therapy is more effective with or without ADT in treating patients with prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial is studying radiation therapy to see how well it works compared with radiation therapy given together with ADT in treating patients with prostate cancer.
ID: NCT00936390
Sponsor; Collaborators: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; National Cancer Institute, NRG Oncology
Locations: 518 locations, James A. Haley VA Hospital
Enzalutamide With or Without Abiraterone and Prednisone in Treating Patients With Castration-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer
This randomized phase III trial studies enzalutamide to see how well it works compared to enzalutamide, abiraterone, and prednisone in treating patients with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. Androgens can cause the growth of prostate cancer cells. Drugs, such as enzalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and prednisone, may lessen the amount of androgens made by the body.
ID: NCT01949337
Sponsor; Collaborators: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; NCI, Astellas Pharma US, Inc., Medivation, Inc., Biologics, Inc.
Locations: 539 locations, including VA Connecticut Healthcare System
S1216, Phase III ADT+TAK-700 vs ADT+Bicalutamide for Metastatic Prostate Cancer (S1216)
The purpose of this study is to compare overall survival in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer patients randomly assigned to ADT + TAK-700 vs androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + bicalutamide.
ID: NCT01809691
Sponsor; Collaborators: SWOG Cancer Research Network; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., NCI
Locations: 560 locations, including VA New York Harbor Healthcare System
Androgen Ablation Therapy With or Without Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED)
RATIONALE: Androgens can cause the growth of prostate cancer cells. Androgen ablation therapy may stop the adrenal glands from making androgens. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as docetaxel, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. It is not yet known whether androgen-ablation therapy is more effective with or without docetaxel in treating metastatic prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial is studying androgen ablation therapy and chemotherapy to see how well they work compared to androgen ablation therapy alone in treating patients with metastatic prostate cancer.
ID: NCT00309985
Sponsor; Collaborator: ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group; NCI
Locations: 343 locations, including Mather VAMC
Not Yet Recruiting
biraterone, Enzalutamide, or Apalutamide in Castrate-Sensitive Prostate Cancer
The investigators have used national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data to demonstrate real-world efficacy of abiraterone and enzalutamide in veterans with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. In the real world that is the VHA, the investigators have successfully estimated g values that accurately predict overall survival, and the use of this metric in other settings should now be explored. In the egalitarian system that is the VHA, the treatment of prostate cancer is excellent, uniform across the US and indifferent to race. The choices made are clearly personalized, given not all men received all therapies, and younger veterans were treated more aggressively.
ID: NCT05422911
Sponsor: James J. Peters VAMC
Location: James J. Peters VAMC
18F-DCFPyL PET/CT Impact on Treatment Strategies for Patients With Prostate Cancer (PROSPYL)
The main purpose of this phase II trial study is to determine whether a positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan using 18F-DCFPyL affects the clinical management plan in veterans. In this study, the management plan prior to and after 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT will be recorded by specific questionnaires, and corresponding changes in management will be analyzed. The scan will be used to see how the disease has spread. Both the treatment strategies and probable disease outcomes as relevant to clinical endpoints will be assessed. This study is open to veterans only.
ID: NCT04390880
Sponsor, Investigator: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System; Gholam Berenji, MD
Location: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System
18F-DCFPyL PET-CT Scan and Prostate Cancer
The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of 18F-DCFPyL PET-CT for initial staging of prostate cancer in veterans compared to conventional imaging (99mTc-MDP bone scan and diagnostic CT or MRI). The primary clinical endpoint of our study is the percentage of veterans with prostate cancer in which the 18F-DCFPyL PET-CT identifies M1 disease at initial staging. Secondary objectives included frequency of the change in primary treatment plan after initial staging.
ID: NCT03852654
Sponsor, Investigator: Lida Jafari, MD
Location: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System
Neoadjuvant Therapy With Docetaxel and Ketoconazole in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Pilot Study (IST 16167)
Eligible patients with high-risk prostate cancer who are scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy will receive 4 cycles of therapy with ketoconazole and docetaxel prior to surgery resection. A cycle of therapy is defined as 21 days (3 weeks). Pharmacokinetic analysis will be performed during the first and second cycles of therapy. All patients will be evaluated for toxicity, tumor response, and recurrence.
ID: NCT00870714
Sponsor, Collaborator: Kansas City VAMC; Sanofi
Location: Kansas City VAMC
A Study of Epirubicin With Estramustine Phosphate and Celecoxib for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer
The purpose of this clinical trial is to find out the effect of epirubicin with estramustine phosphate and celecoxib on PSA and objective response in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer, as well as to evaluate the toxicity and quality of life of this combination. Celecoxib is an FDA-approved drug that treats arthritis. Epirubicin, alone or with estramustine phosphate, has been used in the treatment of hormone-resistant prostate cancer. These drugs have demonstrated evidence of tumor blood vessel suppression and a combination of these 3 drugs could possibly arrest further tumor growth or even make the tumor decrease in size.
ID: NCT00218205
Sponsor, Collaborator; Investigator: VA New Jersey Health Care System; Pfizer; Basil Kasimis, MD
Location: VA New Jersey Health Care System
A Phase II Trial of Combination Therapy With Celecoxib and Taxotere for the Treatment of Stage D3 Prostate Cancer
The purpose of this clinical trial is to find out the safety and effectiveness as well as the patient’s quality of life while taking the combination of Taxotere and celecoxib on patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer. Celecoxib (Celebrex) is an FDA-approved drug that treats arthritis. Taxotere (Docetaxel) is an FDA-approved chemotherapy drug to treat certain forms of cancer. Both drugs have demonstrated evidences of tumor blood vessel suppression and combination of these 2 drugs could possibly arrest further tumor growth or make the tumor decrease in size.
ID: NCT00215345
Sponsor, Collaborator; Investigator: Department of Veterans Affairs, New Jersey; Pfizer, Sanofi; Basil Kasimis, MD
Location: VA New Jersey Health Care System
A Yoga Program for Patients Undergoing Prostate Cancer Surgery
Men with localized prostate cancer are often treated with surgery, a treatment that is associated with high rates of adverse effects such as erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI) which impact quality of life. Yoga may improve control of UI and improve ED by bringing awareness to and strengthening the pelvic floor musculature. The randomized controlled pilot study is to assess the feasibility of an innovative hybrid (in-person and virtual) twice-weekly yoga program that includes a prehabilitation component and to obtain preliminary data that will help assess its potential effectiveness in alleviating prostate cancer treatment symptom burden (primarily ED and UI). The long-term goal is to develop a scalable and sustainable yoga program that helps cancer survivors manage their treatment side effects.
ID: NCT05929300
Sponsor, Investigator: VA Office of Research and Development; Abigail Silva, PhD, MPH
Location: Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital
Greater Transparency of Oncologists’ Pharma Relationships Needed
The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”
Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.
Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.
What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.
Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest
To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.
“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”
Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.
From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.
Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.
The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.
“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.
Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect
A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.
That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.
“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”
The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.
Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.
The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.
A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments
While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.
For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.
The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.
Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”
For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.
From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.
The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.
When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.
“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”
Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.
“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.
“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”
Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”
Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”
Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.
Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.
What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.
Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest
To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.
“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”
Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.
From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.
Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.
The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.
“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.
Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect
A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.
That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.
“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”
The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.
Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.
The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.
A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments
While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.
For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.
The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.
Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”
For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.
From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.
The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.
When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.
“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”
Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.
“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.
“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”
Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”
Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”
Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.
Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.
What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.
Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest
To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.
“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”
Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.
From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.
Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.
The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.
“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.
Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect
A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.
That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.
“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”
The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.
Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.
The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.
A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments
While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.
For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.
The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.
Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”
For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.
From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.
The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.
When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.
“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”
Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.
“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.
“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”
Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”
Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
FROM ASCO 2024
Genetics and Lifestyle Choices Can Affect Early Prostate Cancer Deaths
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- About one third of men die from prostate cancer before age 75, highlighting the need for prevention strategies that target high-risk populations.
- In the current study, researchers analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies — the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) — which included 19,607 men with a median age at inclusion of 59 years (MDCS) and 65.1 years (HPFS) followed from 1991 to 2019.
- Participants were categorized by genetic risk and lifestyle score. Genetic risk was defined using a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) for overall prostate cancer that included 400 genetic risk variants.
- A healthy lifestyle score was defined as 3-6, while an unhealthy lifestyle score was 0-2. Lifestyle factors included smoking, weight, physical activity, and diet.
- The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between genetic and lifestyle factors and prostate cancer death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Combining the PRS and family history of cancer, 67% of men overall (13,186 of 19,607) were considered to have higher genetic risk, and about 30% overall had an unhealthy lifestyle score of 0-2.
- Men at higher genetic risk accounted for 88% (94 of 107) of early prostate cancer deaths.
- Compared with men at lower genetic risk, those at higher genetic risk had more than a threefold higher rate of early prostate cancer death (HR, 3.26) and more than a twofold increased rate of late prostate cancer death (HR, 2.26) as well as a higher lifetime risk for prostate cancer death.
- Among men at higher genetic risk, an unhealthy lifestyle was associated with a higher risk of early prostate cancer death, with smoking and a BMI of ≥ 30 being significant factors. Depending on the definition of a healthy lifestyle, the researchers estimated that 22%-36% of early prostate cancer deaths among men at higher genetic risk might be preventable.
IN PRACTICE:
“Based on data from two prospective cohort studies, this analysis provides evidence for targeting men at increased genetic risk with prevention strategies aimed at reducing premature deaths from prostate cancer,” the researchers concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Anna Plym, PhD, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, was published online on July 3 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Differences in prostate cancer testing and treatment may account for some of the observed association between a healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer death. This analysis provides an estimate of what is achievable in terms of prevention had everyone adopted a healthy lifestyle. The authors only considered factors at study entry, which would not include changes that happen later.
DISCLOSURES:
The study authors reported several disclosures. Fredrik Wiklund, PhD, received grants from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, and WebMD, and stock options and personal fees from Cortechs Labs outside the submitted work. Adam S. Kibel, MD, received personal fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellvax, Merck, and Roche and served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Candel outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- About one third of men die from prostate cancer before age 75, highlighting the need for prevention strategies that target high-risk populations.
- In the current study, researchers analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies — the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) — which included 19,607 men with a median age at inclusion of 59 years (MDCS) and 65.1 years (HPFS) followed from 1991 to 2019.
- Participants were categorized by genetic risk and lifestyle score. Genetic risk was defined using a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) for overall prostate cancer that included 400 genetic risk variants.
- A healthy lifestyle score was defined as 3-6, while an unhealthy lifestyle score was 0-2. Lifestyle factors included smoking, weight, physical activity, and diet.
- The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between genetic and lifestyle factors and prostate cancer death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Combining the PRS and family history of cancer, 67% of men overall (13,186 of 19,607) were considered to have higher genetic risk, and about 30% overall had an unhealthy lifestyle score of 0-2.
- Men at higher genetic risk accounted for 88% (94 of 107) of early prostate cancer deaths.
- Compared with men at lower genetic risk, those at higher genetic risk had more than a threefold higher rate of early prostate cancer death (HR, 3.26) and more than a twofold increased rate of late prostate cancer death (HR, 2.26) as well as a higher lifetime risk for prostate cancer death.
- Among men at higher genetic risk, an unhealthy lifestyle was associated with a higher risk of early prostate cancer death, with smoking and a BMI of ≥ 30 being significant factors. Depending on the definition of a healthy lifestyle, the researchers estimated that 22%-36% of early prostate cancer deaths among men at higher genetic risk might be preventable.
IN PRACTICE:
“Based on data from two prospective cohort studies, this analysis provides evidence for targeting men at increased genetic risk with prevention strategies aimed at reducing premature deaths from prostate cancer,” the researchers concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Anna Plym, PhD, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, was published online on July 3 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Differences in prostate cancer testing and treatment may account for some of the observed association between a healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer death. This analysis provides an estimate of what is achievable in terms of prevention had everyone adopted a healthy lifestyle. The authors only considered factors at study entry, which would not include changes that happen later.
DISCLOSURES:
The study authors reported several disclosures. Fredrik Wiklund, PhD, received grants from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, and WebMD, and stock options and personal fees from Cortechs Labs outside the submitted work. Adam S. Kibel, MD, received personal fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellvax, Merck, and Roche and served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Candel outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- About one third of men die from prostate cancer before age 75, highlighting the need for prevention strategies that target high-risk populations.
- In the current study, researchers analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies — the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) — which included 19,607 men with a median age at inclusion of 59 years (MDCS) and 65.1 years (HPFS) followed from 1991 to 2019.
- Participants were categorized by genetic risk and lifestyle score. Genetic risk was defined using a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) for overall prostate cancer that included 400 genetic risk variants.
- A healthy lifestyle score was defined as 3-6, while an unhealthy lifestyle score was 0-2. Lifestyle factors included smoking, weight, physical activity, and diet.
- The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between genetic and lifestyle factors and prostate cancer death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Combining the PRS and family history of cancer, 67% of men overall (13,186 of 19,607) were considered to have higher genetic risk, and about 30% overall had an unhealthy lifestyle score of 0-2.
- Men at higher genetic risk accounted for 88% (94 of 107) of early prostate cancer deaths.
- Compared with men at lower genetic risk, those at higher genetic risk had more than a threefold higher rate of early prostate cancer death (HR, 3.26) and more than a twofold increased rate of late prostate cancer death (HR, 2.26) as well as a higher lifetime risk for prostate cancer death.
- Among men at higher genetic risk, an unhealthy lifestyle was associated with a higher risk of early prostate cancer death, with smoking and a BMI of ≥ 30 being significant factors. Depending on the definition of a healthy lifestyle, the researchers estimated that 22%-36% of early prostate cancer deaths among men at higher genetic risk might be preventable.
IN PRACTICE:
“Based on data from two prospective cohort studies, this analysis provides evidence for targeting men at increased genetic risk with prevention strategies aimed at reducing premature deaths from prostate cancer,” the researchers concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Anna Plym, PhD, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, was published online on July 3 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Differences in prostate cancer testing and treatment may account for some of the observed association between a healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer death. This analysis provides an estimate of what is achievable in terms of prevention had everyone adopted a healthy lifestyle. The authors only considered factors at study entry, which would not include changes that happen later.
DISCLOSURES:
The study authors reported several disclosures. Fredrik Wiklund, PhD, received grants from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, and WebMD, and stock options and personal fees from Cortechs Labs outside the submitted work. Adam S. Kibel, MD, received personal fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellvax, Merck, and Roche and served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Candel outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.