Alternative cancer treatment could replace chemo and surgery, study suggests
Nearly 80% of patients who suffered from a variety of cancer types were successfully treated with only immunotherapy, according to a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The immunotherapy protocol successfully treated 100% of rectal cancer patients involved in the trial.
"My husband, Tommy, and I were preparing for the worst," recalled Maureen Sideris, who was diagnosed with gastroesophageal junction cancer in 2022 and subsequently became a participant in the trial.
"After being treated with only immunotherapy, I had no evidence of cancer and didn't have to undergo surgery, chemo or radiation," she said in an MSK press release. "I felt like I won the lottery!"
Dr. Andrea Cercek, a gastrointestinal oncologist, oversaw the research along with fellow gastrointestinal oncologist Dr. Luiz Diaz.
The pair sought to develop this approach in part due to the negative impacts of traditional treatment, according to the release.
"Using the standard-of-care treatment of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy to treat rectal cancer is effective," Cercek said.
"But the treatments can leave people infertile and severely affect bowel, urinary and sexual functions, as well as other aspects of daily life."
"After being treated with only immunotherapy, I had no evidence of cancer and didn't have to undergo surgery, chemo or radiation."
Participants in the trial were all patients with tumors ranging from stage 1 to stage 3, meaning the tumors had not yet spread, the release indicated.
The tumors also had a genetic mutation called mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd), which makes them particularly vulnerable to a type of immunotherapy called "checkpoint inhibitors."
This therapy "unmasks" tumor cells, MSK stated, making it easier for the patient's own immune system to recognize and kill cancer cells.
The first clinical trial testing the therapy started with only 18 patients, all of whom had rectal cancer.
"We knew there was a broad range of cancer types that had this same MMRd genetic mutation," Cercek said. "We hoped this approach could help people facing these other cancers, too."
In the expanded trial, which contained 103 patients, there were 49 rectal cancer patients and 54 patients with other types of cancer. Participants received checkpoint inhibitor infusions intravenously over the course of six months, per the release.
In all 49 rectal cancer patients, there was no evidence of cancer after immunotherapy.
Of the 54 patients with other cancers, 35 saw all signs of cancer disappear after therapy, according to a variety of tests performed for the study.
"This is a very significant response, and the results were even better than we had hoped," said Cercek. "We found that some cancer types responded extremely well to the immunotherapy, including colon and stomach cancer."
In the 20% of non-rectal cancer patients who still needed surgery post-therapy, researchers saw that the immunotherapy often shrunk the tumor and even lowered the stage classifications of some of the tumors, according to Cercek.
Timothy Yap, Ph.D., a medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, agrees that the immunotherapy treatment's effectiveness for multiple kinds of cancer is "exciting."
"We are always seeking to improve treatment strategies for cancer patients through innovative clinical trials, and this is no exception," Yap, who was not involved in the study, told Fox Digital.
"Responding patients may avoid the need for surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and benefit by improving their quality of life," he said.
"This is a very significant response, and the results were even better than we had hoped."
Based on the results of the original trial with rectal patients, the immunotherapy-only approach has been incorporated into the treatment guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, which is the doctor's group that sets cancer treatments in the U.S., the release stated.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
Some of the original participants of the 2022 trial are still cancer-free today, multiple years after the initial treatment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
8 hours ago
- Medscape
FDA Approves New ADC for Lung Cancer Treatment
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. It's Mark Kris, from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking about a birthday gift I received on June 23 when the FDA approved the indication of datopotamab deruxtecan for people with lung cancers. We have another drug, our third ADC (antibody-drug conjugate) to fight lung cancer, so that's a gift. Let's talk a little bit about that agent. It's an interesting twist in our practice patterns. What can the drug do? It had a response rate of 45%, which is really important in patients that had EGFR mutations with progression on osimertinib. We really need drugs in that space. The duration of response was about 7 months, which is significant. One interesting thing in the approval, [was] that the response rate of the blinded folks was greater than that in the investigator-assessed response by about 10%. It's very interesting. Clearly, we have another drug, and we have it in a space where we need it. Let's talk a bit about the toxicity. I'm going to focus more on the paper by Bardia et al that compared datopotamab deruxtecan to various chemo drugs in breast cancer, not in lung cancer. You can take this a little bit with a grain of salt. First, they saw a whole different array of side effects with datopotamab deruxtecan, things that we don't normally deal with here. Nausea, stomatitis, alopecia, dry eye, and vomiting. All of those were more than 10% more common in patients that received datopotamab deruxtecan compared to the control. The only things that were more common with the control were neutropenia, leukopenia, and hand-foot syndrome in patients that had capecitabine. One thing, though, is while you say, 'Oh, these weren't dangerous side effects,' they surely were lifestyle altering. Nobody wants to have these side effects on a daily basis. Again, there's an increasing awareness about these kinds of lower-grade but still lifestyle-disrupting side effects. When it goes on day after day, you really have to balance that into the benefit you're going to receive. I think the second important point is how, when we use this drug, we're going to have to go to another level to deal with the adverse effects that we are going to see. The first would be nausea and emesis. It is a highly emetogenic regimen based on the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines, so you would need either three or four antiemetic drugs. That's number one. Number two, because of the potential eye problems, you need an eye exam before treatment — and the label says at least annually — with any symptoms. I think it's very important that you give the patients eyedrops, and in general, the preservative-free eyedrops are the ones that are most effective. Stomatitis is a very common side effect with that agent. It's really not seen with the other drugs that even contain the same warhead. There, dexamethasone rinses are important. Now, this is a compounded medicine so you need to be very careful in making sure that you identify pharmacies that will prepare this and will have it available for the patients that need it. Last, there is the risk of hypersensitivity reactions and there's a recommendation for premedication for that. As you think about using datopotamab deruxtecan, you need to have all your ducks in a row to treat side effects. You need prophylaxis for hypersensitivity reactions, nausea, and emesis. The patient will need an eye exam. You need to prepare the patient for possible dry eye and teach them which eyedrops are the best. You also need to ensure the availability of dexamethasone rinses and mouth washes. All that needs to be in place to make sure that the patient can safely use the drug. I think it's going to be a useful drug. We don't yet have a uniformly available way to select patients for its use other than EGFR . I should note that the approval is for EGFR -mutated lung cancers. It doesn't say which type of mutation, so that would give you some latitude in giving it for exon 20 atypicals as well as for the common sensitizing mutation. We have another drug. It's clearly going to be a useful one. It clearly comes with many adverse effects that we don't normally treat on an everyday basis, we're used to the diarrhea and skin changes that come on with the EGFR TKIs. This pattern of side effects is different and requires some additional attention, but with it, the drug can be useful. I'm glad that we have yet another way to fight this disease.
Fox News
a day ago
- Fox News
Parents defend using push-ups and squats as punishment in viral video
Katie and Dustin Maletich, Oregon parents of four, have gone viral on social media for a parenting moment that's sparked some debate. After Dustin's 9-year-old stepson, Tommy, told his mother to "chill," he was instructed to do several push-ups and 60 squats as a form of discipline. The workout was met with a father-son conversation about the tone in which he should be speaking to his mother. Tommy was attentive and apologized to his mom. Dustin Maletich, who is a corrections officer at a prison, ended the confrontation with an "I love you" and a hug. While some praised the stepfather for his approach, others were concerned about using physical exercise as a form of punishment. Dr. Dyan Hes, pediatrician and medical director at Highline Modern Medicine in New York, reacted to this discipline method in an interview with Fox News Digital, calling it a "ridiculous punishment." "If you have ever done 60 squats, you know it is painful, especially in a young prepubescent child," she said. "Regardless, this is still a form of corporal punishment. Exercise should invoke positive connotations, not negative ones." Educational psychologist and parenting expert Dr. Michele Borba shared a different perspective, stating that the stepfather approached it the "right way" by responding calmly and enforcing a punishment that seemed familiar and doable for the child. The California-based expert was more concerned about how posting the video online could emotionally impact the child and invoke "public shame." In an on-camera interview with Fox News Digital, the Maletich family shared that fitness isn't used as a punishment for their children, but as a method of teaching self-control and emotional regulation. (See the video at the top of the article.) "It's never like, 'We're punishing you because you were bad,'" Katie Maletich said. "It's, 'Hey, let's help you figure out some better self-control and a better outlet for whatever is going on.'" Dustin Maletich added, "We try to have the consequences correlate with the inappropriate behavior. If you demonstrate the inability to control your actions, then by doing physical activity, you're showing yourself that you are in control of your actions." "There are plenty of times that I get frustrated," he went on. "I can't lash out at my boss. I can't yell at somebody. I can't throw a tantrum. That's not the way the world works." The couple shared that their oldest daughter, who is 13, chooses to walk or jog if her emotions are feeling out of control, before engaging in a conversation with her parents. "[Our daughter] said, 'I don't want to have a sit-down conversation with you when I'm cranky,' but when she goes jogging on the treadmill, she said she finds that afterward, she's able to better communicate her feelings because she's more centered," Katie Maletich said. "Our kids like working out. They don't do it every day, but I think overall they enjoy it, because it's such a central part of our home." Fitness is a "positive bonding experience" for the Maletichs, she said. "They feel better, and they voice it afterward … They're happier, they're less frustrated. And so, to us, we see that as a win." This approach to discipline can differ for each child and circumstance, the Maletichs shared, which involves "intention and intuition." "The biggest thing is just learning to respond as a parent rather than reacting," Katie said. The couple's approach to parenting is "we're not raising kids, we're raising adults," Dustin shared. "I think putting more focus on how our kids are going to be able to handle life when they're adults is more important than figuring out how to make them happy and comfortable right now," Katie said. For other parents, Katie noted that physical activity has worked "really well" when followed by "connection and conversation." For more Health articles, visit "That's a really essential part of this," she said. "You have to explain it to them afterward and make sure that connection, both emotionally and to the issue and consequence, is there." The couple also responded to the backlash they received after posting the video, mentioning that they asked their son for consent before sharing it. He responded with hopes that it would go viral.
Medscape
2 days ago
- Medscape
New Tools for Lung Cancer, Harder Job for Clinicians
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. It's Mark Kris, from Memorial Sloan Kettering, with a month-later review of the 2025 ASCO meeting in Chicago. I think everybody who was there and attended the lung cancer sessions left with the, I'll have to say, difficult time unpacking what we learned during that meeting. There was a dizzying array of trials presented and a huge amount of data, but sadly, there was no breakthrough. There was no one treatment or approach that told each of us we had to start doing this in every patient on Tuesday when we got home again. What it did was give us more tools and more ways we could fight cancers, but it really made our jobs much harder. I think that we need to spend some time thinking about how those data could be used, and I'll pick a couple of examples. I think one would be in the small cell lung cancer area. There was a large amount of attention to the use of tarlatamab as a treatment at relapse. It was a comparison trial to topotecan and lurbinectedin, and there was an improvement in outcomes in those groups. While that benefit was there, what was not addressed was the benefit of repeating standard therapy, which is what many of us do, particularly when there has been a longer time between the end of the induction treatment and recurrence. The second trial that I thought was useful in the small cell area was a randomized trial adding lurbinectedin to the checkpoint inhibitor after induction chemotherapy. There was an improvement in disease-free survival there also. Personally, I was more impressed by the latter trial, in that it gave our patients a longer time with disease control rather than focusing the time of relapse, where people may already have suffered symptoms brought on by the progressive lung cancer — which sadly is an all-too-common occurrence. In the perioperative space, my colleague Jamie Chaft reported on neoadjuvant osimertinib. In her trial of osimertinib alone, osimertinib plus chemotherapy, and osimertinib and chemotherapy alone, they showed a benefit for the osimertinib-containing arms but not a clear benefit of osimertinib alone versus osimertinib plus chemotherapy. What's the take-home message there? Well, again, it's not simple. I think that we need to give chemotherapy to every patient with stage IB disease and beyond, whether they have an EGFR mutation or not. Based on the fact that we can give chemotherapy more safelyand more completely in the neoadjuvant setting, I would tend to use osimertinib with chemotherapy upfront and then surgery. If you do go the other way and use osimertinib alone, you would need to give chemotherapy afterward, which is, frankly, tougher. I think my take-home message from that was osimertinib and chemotherapy, our standard of care for advanced disease, should also be our standard for neoadjuvant disease in patients with EGFR mutations. There was a fantastic lecture by Patricia LoRusso, from Yale, about antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). I think that was the most confusing moment of all during the ASCO meeting — the number of ADCs under evaluation. Yet, as Dr LoRusso pointed out, despite the number, it's the same targets, largely the same warheads, and very often, antibodies without activity in and of themselves. When you look at the overall benefits of the group, there are none that truly stand out. We now have three available in the lung cancer arena. The benefit, side effects, and the whole field is really quite confusing. One other message was that, with the bispecific antibodies, the more targets you have, the more toxicity you're going to see. It's a real balance between benefit and risk. What are you going to do? Again, there was no breakthrough at ASCO this year. Clearly, there are more therapies and there are even more in the pipeline. I think what we need to do now is to learn more, and to — unfortunately — spend a large amount of time going through the data and see exactly the benefit versus risk ratio for each of the new therapies and for each of our patients deciding where that goes. For example, I would be a big fan of giving lurbinectedin because of its ability to improve disease-free survival, which is so important in small cell [lung cancer], where relapse is almost certain, and that disease-free time is the best time for our patients. For the neoadjuvant, it would be giving both chemotherapy and osimertinibpre-surgery, in that is better tolerated there and you can also assess benefit very well. For tarlatamab, it's a tough decision there. Again, it's the time of relapse. We have many choices at relapse, giving the same drugs again, giving another perhaps less toxic agent like temozolomide, giving tarlatamab and the standard drugs. Clearly, tarlatamab was better than some of the standard drugs, but they're not the ones that most of us use for the patients. We usually go with the same treatment by and large. Lastly, it's going to be incumbent on us to work harder to take that information we got at ASCO this year and make the best decisions for each patient. We have to focus on the nuance. We have to learn more, and there is no knee-jerk that every patient needs tarlatamab or every patient should get induction chemotherapy with the combination. We have to choose our patients wisely. You've heard me before, and I'll say it again. Our jobs are better, but they're harder.
