Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

A patient on trastuzumab deruxtecan (TDXD) for seven years with no evidence of disease and no toxicity chose to continue the drug, declining to switch to a standard maintenance regimen. This illustrates a real-world challenge where patient preference and excellent outcomes can override the clinical logic of treatment de-escalation.

Related Insights

The emergence of positive data from trials like PATINA creates a dilemma for oncologists treating patients who are already stable on an older maintenance therapy. The consensus suggests not altering a successful regimen to avoid disrupting patient stability, revealing a cautious approach to integrating new evidence into established care.

The standard practice of a 6-8 cycle chemotherapy induction followed by maintenance wasn't a deliberate trial design. It evolved organically from patient intolerance to cumulative toxicities like neuropathy, a limitation newer, less toxic drugs like TDXD don't necessarily share.

Despite compelling data from trials like PATINA, some patients with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer refuse maintenance endocrine therapy due to side effects. This highlights a real-world gap between clinical trial evidence and patient adherence, forcing oncologists to navigate patient preferences against optimal treatment protocols.

Traditional endpoints like progression-free survival (PFS) incentivize continuous treatment. The NCI group proposes "treatment-free survival," a novel metric that quantifies time spent *off* therapy. This endpoint better captures the patient experience and rewards treatments that provide durable responses after a finite course.

When patients first choose an indefinite BTK inhibitor over a time-limited venetoclax regimen, they reveal underlying preferences (e.g., avoiding IV infusions, scheduling) that likely persist and should guide second-line treatment selection with pirtobrutinib.

In the DB09 trial, the median progression-free survival (40 months) was double the median duration of TDXD treatment (20 months). This discrepancy suggests many patients discontinued the cytotoxic component and effectively entered a maintenance phase, validating the induction-maintenance model even within a continuous therapy trial design.

To mitigate long-term toxicity from TDXD, oncologists are proposing an "induction/maintenance" approach. Patients receive TDXD for an initial period to achieve maximal response, then switch to a less toxic maintenance regimen for a "chemotherapy holiday," improving quality of life.

While many CLL patients prefer fixed-duration therapy to avoid continuous medication, this preference is often overridden by practical logistics. The burden of increased monitoring and frequent clinic visits associated with fixed-duration regimens leads some patients to opt for continuous therapy instead.

Contrary to initial fears, both clinical trial and real-world data show that patients experiencing asymptomatic, grade 1 interstitial lung disease (ILD) from TDXD can be safely retreated. This allows patients to continue benefiting from a highly effective therapy without undue risk.

In the DESTINY-CRC02 trial, the lower 5.4 mg/kg dose of trastuzumab deruxtecan (TDXD) resulted in a higher response rate in colorectal cancer compared to the 6.4 mg/kg dose used in gastric cancer. This counter-intuitive finding suggests better tolerability led to longer treatment duration and superior outcomes.

Patients on Long-Term Effective TDXD May Resist De-escalation to Maintenance Therapy | RiffOn