Finding that sweet spot where science, practice, and best-possible outcomes come together

The practice of oncology and the science driving it have undergone substantial change in recent years, so it was particularly exciting when this year’s Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to James Allison and Tasuko Honjo for their discovery that the body’s immune system can be harnessed to fight cancer. The advent of immunotherapy has expanded our therapeutic options, especially for patients whose previous treatments have failed, and in some patients, improvement in overall survival and safety profiles have been encouraging. But we still have a way to go with immunotherapies: not all patients respond to them and they are a costly therapeutic option. In addition, while chemotherapy supresses the immune system, immune-checkpoint inhibitors can hyperactivate it, and patients can experience serious immune-related adverse events that can result in life-threatening toxicities. Among the many things we grapple with in our daily practice is pairing these new and thrilling findings with our patients on a case-by-case basis to ensure the best-possible outcomes at every level – clinical, psychosocial, financial.

In recent years, we have seen an uptick in the number of FDA approvals, and as our therapeutic options have expanded, we have been able to refine and microtarget our treatment approaches, with encouraging clinical and quality-of-life outcomes. Our approach to practice has changed as well – our care is more patient focused, and we work more as part of a team, rather than individually, to ensure that our patients’ clinical and supportive needs are met. We hope our content reflects these shifts. For example, on page e188, Ibrahimi and colleagues looked at the time from admission to treatment initiation (TAT) in patients who were newly diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia to see if it had an impact on overall survival (OS) and event-free survival. They obtained retrospective data over 5 years, focusing on patients with a TAT of 0-4 days and those with a TAT of >4 days, and found that the median OS in the 0-4 days group was almost double that of the <4 days group (1.3 years and 0.57 years, respectively). Median event-free survival for the groups was 1.21 years and 0.57 years, respectively. Moreover, that association remained significant in a multivariate analysis adjusting for age, white blood cell count, molecular risk group, and undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplant.
 

Marriage and survival

Does marital status have a prognostic bearing on outcomes in patients with cancer? Vyfhuis and colleagues addressed that question in their study of patients with stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had been treated uniformly with curative intent (p. e194). Specifically, they looked at OS and freedom from recurrence and they adjusted for patient-, disease-, and treatment-specific factors, as well as the interaction with racial, nutritional, and immunologic status.

In all, 52% of patients in the study were married, and were more likely to self-identify as white; live in areas with a higher household median income; undergo surgery; and have insurance, an ECOG of 0, and higher pretreatment albumin. The authors report that on multivariate analysis, marital status remained an independent predictor of survival and was associated with a 40% decreased risk of death, further stratifying outcomes beyond gender and stage grouping. Freedom from recurrence was comparable between the married and not-married patients. These findings suggest that in a cancer such as NSCLC, for which survival is modest despite therapeutic advances and which is associated with considerable treatment-related toxicities, marital status might be an independent predictor for survival. The authors suggest that marriage is likely a surrogate for better psychosocial support, and that the survival improvements might justify investment in supportive care interventional strategies to help advance overall outcomes.