AVAHO

About 7 of every 10 veterans who die by suicide involve the use of a firearm. A reason for this high rate is access, as half of veterans report owning ≥ 1 personal firearms. Of those individuals, more than half report storing firearms loaded and/or unsecured and one-third of veterans who store their firearms loaded and unlocked do not own a lockbox or safe. 

Suicide death prevention has improved as firearms have become more difficult to obtain. That’s why Navy veteran Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), former FBI Special Agent and federal prosecutor Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) have teamed up to introduce the Saving Our Veterans Lives Act of 2024. Under the proposed act, any veteran would be able to get a free lockbox from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Suicidal crises can be brief. According to the VA, if a person experiencing a suicidal crisis can’t access the method they planned to use, they generally do not seek out other lethal means. Lockboxes are a way of “putting space between thought and trigger,” the VA said.

The VA Suicide Prevention Program distributes free firearm cable locks to any veteran who requests one. However, many veterans favor lockboxes and safes to secure their guns. A VA pilot program offers free lockboxes to veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration who are at an elevated risk for suicide. The program is set to launch in late 2024 and is a collaboration between the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, VA National Prosthetics Service, and VA Office of Suicide Prevention.

The proposed bill would make the lockboxes (which typically cost between $25 and $350) free to any veteran, regardless of VA enrollment status or diagnosis. It ensures “sufficient funding for many tens of thousands of lockboxes to be distributed.” The bill would also direct the VA to create a public education campaign on the availability of lockboxes and the importance of secure firearm storage in suicide prevention.

“The alarming and tragic reality is that our veterans face a suicide rate 57% higher than that of civilians,” Rep. Fitzpatrick said. “This commonsense, bipartisan initiative is more than a solution—it's a lifeline.”

The representatives report that the bill has been endorsed by an “unprecedented” number of organizations, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Disabled American Veterans, The American Legion, GIFFORDS, Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady, American Psychological Association, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and Association of VA Psychologist Leaders.

“Did you know that in some cases only 10 minutes elapse between an individual having suicidal ideation and acting?” American Legion National Commander James LaCoursiere said in the representatives’ press release. “The Saving Our Veterans Lives Act is an important part of preventing suicide as it will provide veterans with the information and means to securely store their firearms to prevent suicide, while still protecting their Second Amendment rights. The Legion commends Rep. Deluzio and his team for bringing this bill forward and for their continued dedication to the welfare of our nation’s veterans.” 

"I hear colleagues all the time talk about veteran suicide," Rep. Deluzio said in an interview with Military.com. "It is a problem in my community. It's a problem across the country. Let's take action. This is a chance where we can do it that I think can cut through the politics that normally divide us on these [gun] issues. And I think the coalition supporting the bill tells you, we've got a path to pass it."

About 7 of every 10 veterans who die by suicide involve the use of a firearm. A reason for this high rate is access, as half of veterans report owning ≥ 1 personal firearms. Of those individuals, more than half report storing firearms loaded and/or unsecured and one-third of veterans who store their firearms loaded and unlocked do not own a lockbox or safe. 

Suicide death prevention has improved as firearms have become more difficult to obtain. That’s why Navy veteran Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), former FBI Special Agent and federal prosecutor Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) have teamed up to introduce the Saving Our Veterans Lives Act of 2024. Under the proposed act, any veteran would be able to get a free lockbox from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Suicidal crises can be brief. According to the VA, if a person experiencing a suicidal crisis can’t access the method they planned to use, they generally do not seek out other lethal means. Lockboxes are a way of “putting space between thought and trigger,” the VA said.

The VA Suicide Prevention Program distributes free firearm cable locks to any veteran who requests one. However, many veterans favor lockboxes and safes to secure their guns. A VA pilot program offers free lockboxes to veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration who are at an elevated risk for suicide. The program is set to launch in late 2024 and is a collaboration between the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, VA National Prosthetics Service, and VA Office of Suicide Prevention.

The proposed bill would make the lockboxes (which typically cost between $25 and $350) free to any veteran, regardless of VA enrollment status or diagnosis. It ensures “sufficient funding for many tens of thousands of lockboxes to be distributed.” The bill would also direct the VA to create a public education campaign on the availability of lockboxes and the importance of secure firearm storage in suicide prevention.

“The alarming and tragic reality is that our veterans face a suicide rate 57% higher than that of civilians,” Rep. Fitzpatrick said. “This commonsense, bipartisan initiative is more than a solution—it's a lifeline.”

The representatives report that the bill has been endorsed by an “unprecedented” number of organizations, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Disabled American Veterans, The American Legion, GIFFORDS, Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady, American Psychological Association, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and Association of VA Psychologist Leaders.

“Did you know that in some cases only 10 minutes elapse between an individual having suicidal ideation and acting?” American Legion National Commander James LaCoursiere said in the representatives’ press release. “The Saving Our Veterans Lives Act is an important part of preventing suicide as it will provide veterans with the information and means to securely store their firearms to prevent suicide, while still protecting their Second Amendment rights. The Legion commends Rep. Deluzio and his team for bringing this bill forward and for their continued dedication to the welfare of our nation’s veterans.” 

"I hear colleagues all the time talk about veteran suicide," Rep. Deluzio said in an interview with Military.com. "It is a problem in my community. It's a problem across the country. Let's take action. This is a chance where we can do it that I think can cut through the politics that normally divide us on these [gun] issues. And I think the coalition supporting the bill tells you, we've got a path to pass it."

About 7 of every 10 veterans who die by suicide involve the use of a firearm. A reason for this high rate is access, as half of veterans report owning ≥ 1 personal firearms. Of those individuals, more than half report storing firearms loaded and/or unsecured and one-third of veterans who store their firearms loaded and unlocked do not own a lockbox or safe. 

Suicide death prevention has improved as firearms have become more difficult to obtain. That’s why Navy veteran Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), former FBI Special Agent and federal prosecutor Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) have teamed up to introduce the Saving Our Veterans Lives Act of 2024. Under the proposed act, any veteran would be able to get a free lockbox from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Suicidal crises can be brief. According to the VA, if a person experiencing a suicidal crisis can’t access the method they planned to use, they generally do not seek out other lethal means. Lockboxes are a way of “putting space between thought and trigger,” the VA said.

The VA Suicide Prevention Program distributes free firearm cable locks to any veteran who requests one. However, many veterans favor lockboxes and safes to secure their guns. A VA pilot program offers free lockboxes to veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration who are at an elevated risk for suicide. The program is set to launch in late 2024 and is a collaboration between the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, VA National Prosthetics Service, and VA Office of Suicide Prevention.

The proposed bill would make the lockboxes (which typically cost between $25 and $350) free to any veteran, regardless of VA enrollment status or diagnosis. It ensures “sufficient funding for many tens of thousands of lockboxes to be distributed.” The bill would also direct the VA to create a public education campaign on the availability of lockboxes and the importance of secure firearm storage in suicide prevention.

“The alarming and tragic reality is that our veterans face a suicide rate 57% higher than that of civilians,” Rep. Fitzpatrick said. “This commonsense, bipartisan initiative is more than a solution—it's a lifeline.”

The representatives report that the bill has been endorsed by an “unprecedented” number of organizations, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Disabled American Veterans, The American Legion, GIFFORDS, Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady, American Psychological Association, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and Association of VA Psychologist Leaders.

“Did you know that in some cases only 10 minutes elapse between an individual having suicidal ideation and acting?” American Legion National Commander James LaCoursiere said in the representatives’ press release. “The Saving Our Veterans Lives Act is an important part of preventing suicide as it will provide veterans with the information and means to securely store their firearms to prevent suicide, while still protecting their Second Amendment rights. The Legion commends Rep. Deluzio and his team for bringing this bill forward and for their continued dedication to the welfare of our nation’s veterans.” 

"I hear colleagues all the time talk about veteran suicide," Rep. Deluzio said in an interview with Military.com. "It is a problem in my community. It's a problem across the country. Let's take action. This is a chance where we can do it that I think can cut through the politics that normally divide us on these [gun] issues. And I think the coalition supporting the bill tells you, we've got a path to pass it."

NEW YORK — In a three-way debate on whether to prioritize chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), or one of the novel oral targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), no expert conceded.

Acknowledging that hers was the weakest position, even the specialist who defended novel targeted therapies mounted a staunch defense of real-world patients being treated outside of tertiary centers.

“I was told by many of my colleagues that I got the short end of the stick in this debate, but I am actually here to convince everybody that targeted therapies continue to play an important role, despite the fact that they are the least sexy of these treatment options,” said Joanna Rhodes, MD, director of the Lymphoma Program at Rutgers Cancer Institute, Hoboken, New Jersey.
 

Targeted Therapies Still Relevant to Advanced FL

Although even the newest or coming targeted therapies, such as the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat or next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are not likely to achieve the deep responses and long-term progression-free survival possible with BsAbs or CAR T-cell therapy, the sustained disease control they offer for many patients with R/R FL is not trivial, according to Rhodes.

“The majority of these [advanced follicular lymphoma] patients are being managed in the community,” Rhodes argued at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia, & Myeloma Congress. Access to tertiary centers where the most advanced therapies are available in some cases might not even be feasible. 

Moreover, there are barriers to CAR T cells and BsAbs even at centers where these are available, Rhodes said. On a long list of barriers, lack of caregiver support is an example of one common disqualification at her own institution. 

The experience with CAR T cells in R/R FL has been relatively short, so Rhodes used data on CAR T cells for B-cell lymphoma to make her point. It is not just that the proportion of eligible patients is limited. 

“The majority of B-cell lymphoma patients who are eligible for CAR T cells are not getting them,” she said. “It will be the same for FL.”

In other words, Rhodes indicated that it is premature to count out targeted oral agents or lenalidomide despite the excitement surrounding BsAbs and CAR T cells. The targeted agents and immunomodulatory drugs remain appropriate choices for patients unable or unwilling to travel to tertiary centers for treatment, for frail patients, and for well-informed patients who understand their options and still consider better tolerated therapies to be more consistent with their perception of an adequate risk-benefit ratio. 
 

BsAbs Vie With CAR T Cells in Advanced FL

Hers might be a valid summary, but it did not derail arguments about whether CAR T-cell therapy should be prioritized over BsAbs or the other way around for patients who are candidates for both. 

There are two BsAbs currently approved for R/R FL: glofitamab and mosunetuzumab. More are coming, according to Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, director of hematologic malignancies at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. She provided several reasons why BsAbs might be considered before CAR T-cell therapies in at least some individuals. 

“The biggest advantage is that these therapies…are off the shelf,” she said. This avoids the delay of T-cell manufacturing, the potential need for bridging therapies, and the need for conditioning regimens. With more experience, BsAbs offer the potential for treatment even in a community-practice setting, particularly for maintenance dosing.

“I do think this is a safe treatment in patients who are elderly or unfit,” Wagner-Johnston said, suggesting she tends to lean toward prioritizing BsAbs over CAR T cells when the ability to tolerate an aggressive strategy is a concern. She specified that these drugs are associated with a low relative incidence of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and faster B-cell aplasia recovery. 

The third participant in the debate, who described the efficacy and safety of the three currently approved CAR T-cell therapies for R/R FL, did not agree with this characterization. Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, acknowledged that BsAb agents have an important role to play in the advanced FL setting, but he thinks that CAR T-cell therapies should be prioritized in at least some patients. 

In particular, he would not rule out CAR T-cell therapy in patients with comorbidities or other characteristics that raise questions about fitness for aggressive treatment. 

“In fact, you might want to treat a frail patient just one time with CAR T-cell therapy rather than dose after dose with a bispecific drug,” he said. 
 

No Data to Compare BsAbs and CAR T-Cells Directly

Both agreed that there have been no trials directly comparing a BsAb therapy vs CAR T cells, so there is no definitive answer, and Landsburg was reluctant to take a hard line on reserving BsAbs until after CAR T-cell therapy has been tried.

“Because BsAbs and CAR Ts are approved in the third-line setting, you might consider debulking a patient getting ready for a CAR T with a bispecific,” Landsburg said. However, he acknowledged that the next step becomes complex if patients achieved a complete response after just a few BsAb doses.

“Do you stop what is already working?” Landsburg asked rhetorically, suggesting that the best way forward is not always clear.

For R/R FL, currently there are three approved products: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), and lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). The entry criteria and design of the three pivotal trials differed, so their specific indications vary. Looking across the trials, Landsburg suggested that there might be differences in activity as defined by objective response rates or risk for cytokine release syndrome, but these remain theoretical without head-to-head comparisons.

“My suspicion is we are going to see very similar — quote, unquote — long-term survival curves for patients treated with any of these therapies,” he said, noting that progression-free survival at 3 years has been in the vicinity of 50% for the trials that have had long enough follow-up to judge.

Rather than trying to pick the best agent, he suggested that it makes more sense now to concentrate on strategies to improve response irrespective of CAR T-cell product; these include paying attention to total metabolic tumor volume at the time of infusion, optimizing bridging therapies, and thinking about T-cell fitness, which might be impaired in some patients by recent exposure to bendamustine.

Overall, with multiple ongoing studies with both CAR T-cell therapies and BsAbs in R/R FL — as well with targeted small-molecule agents and immunomodulatory drugs — all of the debate participants acknowledged that choices in R/R FL will evolve. 

“I actually think that combinations will be the future,” Wagner-Johnston said. Singling out tazemetostat and a BsAb and one approach that seems promising, she also predicted that some of the therapies in advanced disease are likely to be moved forward to earlier stages of FL therapy.

Rhodes reported ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, MorphoSys, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer. Wagner-Johnston disclosed relationships with Cuno Science, Dava Oncology, Epizyme, Grünenthal, Karyopharm, and Seagen. Landsburg reported ties with ADC Therapeutics, Calithera, Curis, Epizyme, Karyopharm, MorphoSys, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In a three-way debate on whether to prioritize chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), or one of the novel oral targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), no expert conceded.

Acknowledging that hers was the weakest position, even the specialist who defended novel targeted therapies mounted a staunch defense of real-world patients being treated outside of tertiary centers.

“I was told by many of my colleagues that I got the short end of the stick in this debate, but I am actually here to convince everybody that targeted therapies continue to play an important role, despite the fact that they are the least sexy of these treatment options,” said Joanna Rhodes, MD, director of the Lymphoma Program at Rutgers Cancer Institute, Hoboken, New Jersey.
 

Targeted Therapies Still Relevant to Advanced FL

Although even the newest or coming targeted therapies, such as the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat or next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are not likely to achieve the deep responses and long-term progression-free survival possible with BsAbs or CAR T-cell therapy, the sustained disease control they offer for many patients with R/R FL is not trivial, according to Rhodes.

“The majority of these [advanced follicular lymphoma] patients are being managed in the community,” Rhodes argued at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia, & Myeloma Congress. Access to tertiary centers where the most advanced therapies are available in some cases might not even be feasible. 

Moreover, there are barriers to CAR T cells and BsAbs even at centers where these are available, Rhodes said. On a long list of barriers, lack of caregiver support is an example of one common disqualification at her own institution. 

The experience with CAR T cells in R/R FL has been relatively short, so Rhodes used data on CAR T cells for B-cell lymphoma to make her point. It is not just that the proportion of eligible patients is limited. 

“The majority of B-cell lymphoma patients who are eligible for CAR T cells are not getting them,” she said. “It will be the same for FL.”

In other words, Rhodes indicated that it is premature to count out targeted oral agents or lenalidomide despite the excitement surrounding BsAbs and CAR T cells. The targeted agents and immunomodulatory drugs remain appropriate choices for patients unable or unwilling to travel to tertiary centers for treatment, for frail patients, and for well-informed patients who understand their options and still consider better tolerated therapies to be more consistent with their perception of an adequate risk-benefit ratio. 
 

BsAbs Vie With CAR T Cells in Advanced FL

Hers might be a valid summary, but it did not derail arguments about whether CAR T-cell therapy should be prioritized over BsAbs or the other way around for patients who are candidates for both. 

There are two BsAbs currently approved for R/R FL: glofitamab and mosunetuzumab. More are coming, according to Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, director of hematologic malignancies at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. She provided several reasons why BsAbs might be considered before CAR T-cell therapies in at least some individuals. 

“The biggest advantage is that these therapies…are off the shelf,” she said. This avoids the delay of T-cell manufacturing, the potential need for bridging therapies, and the need for conditioning regimens. With more experience, BsAbs offer the potential for treatment even in a community-practice setting, particularly for maintenance dosing.

“I do think this is a safe treatment in patients who are elderly or unfit,” Wagner-Johnston said, suggesting she tends to lean toward prioritizing BsAbs over CAR T cells when the ability to tolerate an aggressive strategy is a concern. She specified that these drugs are associated with a low relative incidence of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and faster B-cell aplasia recovery. 

The third participant in the debate, who described the efficacy and safety of the three currently approved CAR T-cell therapies for R/R FL, did not agree with this characterization. Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, acknowledged that BsAb agents have an important role to play in the advanced FL setting, but he thinks that CAR T-cell therapies should be prioritized in at least some patients. 

In particular, he would not rule out CAR T-cell therapy in patients with comorbidities or other characteristics that raise questions about fitness for aggressive treatment. 

“In fact, you might want to treat a frail patient just one time with CAR T-cell therapy rather than dose after dose with a bispecific drug,” he said. 
 

No Data to Compare BsAbs and CAR T-Cells Directly

Both agreed that there have been no trials directly comparing a BsAb therapy vs CAR T cells, so there is no definitive answer, and Landsburg was reluctant to take a hard line on reserving BsAbs until after CAR T-cell therapy has been tried.

“Because BsAbs and CAR Ts are approved in the third-line setting, you might consider debulking a patient getting ready for a CAR T with a bispecific,” Landsburg said. However, he acknowledged that the next step becomes complex if patients achieved a complete response after just a few BsAb doses.

“Do you stop what is already working?” Landsburg asked rhetorically, suggesting that the best way forward is not always clear.

For R/R FL, currently there are three approved products: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), and lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). The entry criteria and design of the three pivotal trials differed, so their specific indications vary. Looking across the trials, Landsburg suggested that there might be differences in activity as defined by objective response rates or risk for cytokine release syndrome, but these remain theoretical without head-to-head comparisons.

“My suspicion is we are going to see very similar — quote, unquote — long-term survival curves for patients treated with any of these therapies,” he said, noting that progression-free survival at 3 years has been in the vicinity of 50% for the trials that have had long enough follow-up to judge.

Rather than trying to pick the best agent, he suggested that it makes more sense now to concentrate on strategies to improve response irrespective of CAR T-cell product; these include paying attention to total metabolic tumor volume at the time of infusion, optimizing bridging therapies, and thinking about T-cell fitness, which might be impaired in some patients by recent exposure to bendamustine.

Overall, with multiple ongoing studies with both CAR T-cell therapies and BsAbs in R/R FL — as well with targeted small-molecule agents and immunomodulatory drugs — all of the debate participants acknowledged that choices in R/R FL will evolve. 

“I actually think that combinations will be the future,” Wagner-Johnston said. Singling out tazemetostat and a BsAb and one approach that seems promising, she also predicted that some of the therapies in advanced disease are likely to be moved forward to earlier stages of FL therapy.

Rhodes reported ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, MorphoSys, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer. Wagner-Johnston disclosed relationships with Cuno Science, Dava Oncology, Epizyme, Grünenthal, Karyopharm, and Seagen. Landsburg reported ties with ADC Therapeutics, Calithera, Curis, Epizyme, Karyopharm, MorphoSys, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In a three-way debate on whether to prioritize chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), or one of the novel oral targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), no expert conceded.

Acknowledging that hers was the weakest position, even the specialist who defended novel targeted therapies mounted a staunch defense of real-world patients being treated outside of tertiary centers.

“I was told by many of my colleagues that I got the short end of the stick in this debate, but I am actually here to convince everybody that targeted therapies continue to play an important role, despite the fact that they are the least sexy of these treatment options,” said Joanna Rhodes, MD, director of the Lymphoma Program at Rutgers Cancer Institute, Hoboken, New Jersey.
 

Targeted Therapies Still Relevant to Advanced FL

Although even the newest or coming targeted therapies, such as the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat or next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are not likely to achieve the deep responses and long-term progression-free survival possible with BsAbs or CAR T-cell therapy, the sustained disease control they offer for many patients with R/R FL is not trivial, according to Rhodes.

“The majority of these [advanced follicular lymphoma] patients are being managed in the community,” Rhodes argued at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia, & Myeloma Congress. Access to tertiary centers where the most advanced therapies are available in some cases might not even be feasible. 

Moreover, there are barriers to CAR T cells and BsAbs even at centers where these are available, Rhodes said. On a long list of barriers, lack of caregiver support is an example of one common disqualification at her own institution. 

The experience with CAR T cells in R/R FL has been relatively short, so Rhodes used data on CAR T cells for B-cell lymphoma to make her point. It is not just that the proportion of eligible patients is limited. 

“The majority of B-cell lymphoma patients who are eligible for CAR T cells are not getting them,” she said. “It will be the same for FL.”

In other words, Rhodes indicated that it is premature to count out targeted oral agents or lenalidomide despite the excitement surrounding BsAbs and CAR T cells. The targeted agents and immunomodulatory drugs remain appropriate choices for patients unable or unwilling to travel to tertiary centers for treatment, for frail patients, and for well-informed patients who understand their options and still consider better tolerated therapies to be more consistent with their perception of an adequate risk-benefit ratio. 
 

BsAbs Vie With CAR T Cells in Advanced FL

Hers might be a valid summary, but it did not derail arguments about whether CAR T-cell therapy should be prioritized over BsAbs or the other way around for patients who are candidates for both. 

There are two BsAbs currently approved for R/R FL: glofitamab and mosunetuzumab. More are coming, according to Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, director of hematologic malignancies at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. She provided several reasons why BsAbs might be considered before CAR T-cell therapies in at least some individuals. 

“The biggest advantage is that these therapies…are off the shelf,” she said. This avoids the delay of T-cell manufacturing, the potential need for bridging therapies, and the need for conditioning regimens. With more experience, BsAbs offer the potential for treatment even in a community-practice setting, particularly for maintenance dosing.

“I do think this is a safe treatment in patients who are elderly or unfit,” Wagner-Johnston said, suggesting she tends to lean toward prioritizing BsAbs over CAR T cells when the ability to tolerate an aggressive strategy is a concern. She specified that these drugs are associated with a low relative incidence of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and faster B-cell aplasia recovery. 

The third participant in the debate, who described the efficacy and safety of the three currently approved CAR T-cell therapies for R/R FL, did not agree with this characterization. Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, acknowledged that BsAb agents have an important role to play in the advanced FL setting, but he thinks that CAR T-cell therapies should be prioritized in at least some patients. 

In particular, he would not rule out CAR T-cell therapy in patients with comorbidities or other characteristics that raise questions about fitness for aggressive treatment. 

“In fact, you might want to treat a frail patient just one time with CAR T-cell therapy rather than dose after dose with a bispecific drug,” he said. 
 

No Data to Compare BsAbs and CAR T-Cells Directly

Both agreed that there have been no trials directly comparing a BsAb therapy vs CAR T cells, so there is no definitive answer, and Landsburg was reluctant to take a hard line on reserving BsAbs until after CAR T-cell therapy has been tried.

“Because BsAbs and CAR Ts are approved in the third-line setting, you might consider debulking a patient getting ready for a CAR T with a bispecific,” Landsburg said. However, he acknowledged that the next step becomes complex if patients achieved a complete response after just a few BsAb doses.

“Do you stop what is already working?” Landsburg asked rhetorically, suggesting that the best way forward is not always clear.

For R/R FL, currently there are three approved products: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), and lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). The entry criteria and design of the three pivotal trials differed, so their specific indications vary. Looking across the trials, Landsburg suggested that there might be differences in activity as defined by objective response rates or risk for cytokine release syndrome, but these remain theoretical without head-to-head comparisons.

“My suspicion is we are going to see very similar — quote, unquote — long-term survival curves for patients treated with any of these therapies,” he said, noting that progression-free survival at 3 years has been in the vicinity of 50% for the trials that have had long enough follow-up to judge.

Rather than trying to pick the best agent, he suggested that it makes more sense now to concentrate on strategies to improve response irrespective of CAR T-cell product; these include paying attention to total metabolic tumor volume at the time of infusion, optimizing bridging therapies, and thinking about T-cell fitness, which might be impaired in some patients by recent exposure to bendamustine.

Overall, with multiple ongoing studies with both CAR T-cell therapies and BsAbs in R/R FL — as well with targeted small-molecule agents and immunomodulatory drugs — all of the debate participants acknowledged that choices in R/R FL will evolve. 

“I actually think that combinations will be the future,” Wagner-Johnston said. Singling out tazemetostat and a BsAb and one approach that seems promising, she also predicted that some of the therapies in advanced disease are likely to be moved forward to earlier stages of FL therapy.

Rhodes reported ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, MorphoSys, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer. Wagner-Johnston disclosed relationships with Cuno Science, Dava Oncology, Epizyme, Grünenthal, Karyopharm, and Seagen. Landsburg reported ties with ADC Therapeutics, Calithera, Curis, Epizyme, Karyopharm, MorphoSys, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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:

In patients with localized prostate cancer, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) was associated with better urinary continence and sexual function, but slightly worse bowel function, compared with radical prostatectomy, according to a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial evaluating quality-of-life outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Compared with prostatectomy, radiotherapy may offer better urinary and sexual outcomes but a higher risk for bowel toxicity in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a comparison has not been performed in a randomized trial using more modern treatment options, such as SBRT.
• Researchers conducted the multicenter PACE-A trial to compare and evaluate quality-of-life outcomes among 123 patients (median age, 65.5 years) with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to undergo either SBRT (n = 63) or radical prostatectomy (n = 60).
• Of the 123 patients, 97 (79%) had a Gleason score of 3+4 and 116 (94%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate risk. The median follow-up was 60.7 months.
• The co–primary endpoints were urinary continence, measured by the number of absorbent urinary pads required per day, and bowel function, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26).
• Secondary endpoints included erectile function (measured using the International Index of Erectile Function 5 questionnaire) , clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Other patient-reported outcomes included EPIC-26 domain scores for urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms, and overall urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 2 years, only 6.5% (three of 46) of patients who ultimately received SBRT used one or more urinary pads daily compared with 50% (16 of 32) of patients who underwent prostatectomy (P < .001). Patients in the prostatectomy group reported worse EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores (median, 77.3 vs 100; P = .003).
• Patients who underwent prostatectomy also had significantly worse sexual function scores (median, 18 vs 62.5 with SBRT; P < .001). Erectile dysfunction events of grade 2 or higher were significantly more common in patients who underwent prostatectomy (63% vs 18%).
• However, at 2 years, the bowel domain scores in the prostatectomy group were significantly higher than in the SBRT group (median, 100 vs 87.5), with a mean difference of 8.9.
• Overall, clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low in both treatment groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“PACE-A provides level 1 evidence of better outcomes of urinary continence and sexual function with worse bowel bother for SBRT, compared with prostatectomy,” the authors wrote, adding that the trial “provides contemporary toxicity estimates to optimize treatment decisions and maximize individual quality of life.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Nicholas van As, of The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research in London, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and differential dropout from allocated treatment could have introduced bias. Data completeness was another limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Several authors reported having various 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with localized prostate cancer, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) was associated with better urinary continence and sexual function, but slightly worse bowel function, compared with radical prostatectomy, according to a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial evaluating quality-of-life outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Compared with prostatectomy, radiotherapy may offer better urinary and sexual outcomes but a higher risk for bowel toxicity in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a comparison has not been performed in a randomized trial using more modern treatment options, such as SBRT.
• Researchers conducted the multicenter PACE-A trial to compare and evaluate quality-of-life outcomes among 123 patients (median age, 65.5 years) with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to undergo either SBRT (n = 63) or radical prostatectomy (n = 60).
• Of the 123 patients, 97 (79%) had a Gleason score of 3+4 and 116 (94%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate risk. The median follow-up was 60.7 months.
• The co–primary endpoints were urinary continence, measured by the number of absorbent urinary pads required per day, and bowel function, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26).
• Secondary endpoints included erectile function (measured using the International Index of Erectile Function 5 questionnaire) , clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Other patient-reported outcomes included EPIC-26 domain scores for urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms, and overall urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 2 years, only 6.5% (three of 46) of patients who ultimately received SBRT used one or more urinary pads daily compared with 50% (16 of 32) of patients who underwent prostatectomy (P < .001). Patients in the prostatectomy group reported worse EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores (median, 77.3 vs 100; P = .003).
• Patients who underwent prostatectomy also had significantly worse sexual function scores (median, 18 vs 62.5 with SBRT; P < .001). Erectile dysfunction events of grade 2 or higher were significantly more common in patients who underwent prostatectomy (63% vs 18%).
• However, at 2 years, the bowel domain scores in the prostatectomy group were significantly higher than in the SBRT group (median, 100 vs 87.5), with a mean difference of 8.9.
• Overall, clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low in both treatment groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“PACE-A provides level 1 evidence of better outcomes of urinary continence and sexual function with worse bowel bother for SBRT, compared with prostatectomy,” the authors wrote, adding that the trial “provides contemporary toxicity estimates to optimize treatment decisions and maximize individual quality of life.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Nicholas van As, of The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research in London, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and differential dropout from allocated treatment could have introduced bias. Data completeness was another limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Several authors reported having various 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with localized prostate cancer, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) was associated with better urinary continence and sexual function, but slightly worse bowel function, compared with radical prostatectomy, according to a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial evaluating quality-of-life outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Compared with prostatectomy, radiotherapy may offer better urinary and sexual outcomes but a higher risk for bowel toxicity in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a comparison has not been performed in a randomized trial using more modern treatment options, such as SBRT.
• Researchers conducted the multicenter PACE-A trial to compare and evaluate quality-of-life outcomes among 123 patients (median age, 65.5 years) with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to undergo either SBRT (n = 63) or radical prostatectomy (n = 60).
• Of the 123 patients, 97 (79%) had a Gleason score of 3+4 and 116 (94%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate risk. The median follow-up was 60.7 months.
• The co–primary endpoints were urinary continence, measured by the number of absorbent urinary pads required per day, and bowel function, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26).
• Secondary endpoints included erectile function (measured using the International Index of Erectile Function 5 questionnaire) , clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Other patient-reported outcomes included EPIC-26 domain scores for urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms, and overall urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 2 years, only 6.5% (three of 46) of patients who ultimately received SBRT used one or more urinary pads daily compared with 50% (16 of 32) of patients who underwent prostatectomy (P < .001). Patients in the prostatectomy group reported worse EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores (median, 77.3 vs 100; P = .003).
• Patients who underwent prostatectomy also had significantly worse sexual function scores (median, 18 vs 62.5 with SBRT; P < .001). Erectile dysfunction events of grade 2 or higher were significantly more common in patients who underwent prostatectomy (63% vs 18%).
• However, at 2 years, the bowel domain scores in the prostatectomy group were significantly higher than in the SBRT group (median, 100 vs 87.5), with a mean difference of 8.9.
• Overall, clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low in both treatment groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“PACE-A provides level 1 evidence of better outcomes of urinary continence and sexual function with worse bowel bother for SBRT, compared with prostatectomy,” the authors wrote, adding that the trial “provides contemporary toxicity estimates to optimize treatment decisions and maximize individual quality of life.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Nicholas van As, of The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research in London, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and differential dropout from allocated treatment could have introduced bias. Data completeness was another limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Several authors reported having various 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has updated its breast cancer screening guidelines, recommending that individuals at an average risk for breast cancer initiate mammography screening at age 40. This change reflects evolving evidence that starting earlier screening yields greater net benefits in reducing breast cancer mortality, particularly for certain racial groups with higher risk factors.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women overall and the leading cause of cancer deaths among Black and Hispanic women. Although mammography has long been recognized as a life-saving tool by detecting cancer early, there has been debate on when screening should begin due to concerns about overdiagnosis, false positives, and potential harms such as unnecessary biopsies.

Recent evidence has prompted ACOG to revise its recommendation for individuals assigned female at birth, including cisgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary individuals. This updated guidance includes individuals with dense breast tissue or a family history of breast cancer but excludes those with higher risk factors, such as a personal history of breast cancer or previous high-risk lesion on a breast biopsy, genetic mutations linked to higher cancer risk, or a history of high-dose radiation therapy to their chest at a young age.

Under the new guidelines, routine screening mammography should start at age 40 and can be performed annually or every 2 years, based on an informed, shared decision-making process that considers the benefits and potential harms of frequent screening.

Previously, ACOG recommended initiating screening between ages 40 and 50, depending on individual risk factors and preferences, with screening required by age 50 at the latest. However, several factors, including an increasing incidence of breast cancer in younger women, have influenced the decision to lower the recommended starting age.
 

Increasing Incidence Among Younger Women

Between 2015 and 2019, the incidence of invasive breast cancer in women aged 40-49 years increased by approximately 2% per year.

“There has been a concerning trend of increasing breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, and new data shows that earlier screening could make a significant difference in decreasing breast cancer deaths,” said Eve Zaritsky, MD, FACOG, coauthor of the clinical practice update. “While screening can sometimes cause anxiety for people and even unnecessary follow-up, the benefits of diagnosing breast cancer earlier outweigh those risks enough to warrant starting to get mammograms at age 40.”

Studies commissioned by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) show that starting mammography at age 40 provides a greater overall benefit than beginning at age 50. Early screening reduces the number of breast cancer deaths and increases life years gained when weighed against the harms of false positives, overdiagnosis, and benign biopsies.
 

Addressing Health Inequities

The benefits of earlier screening are expected to be particularly significant for Black women, who have disproportionately high mortality rates from breast cancer. Even though Black women have a lower overall incidence of breast cancer than White women, they have a 40% higher 5-year age-adjusted mortality rate from the disease and a 45% increased incidence of invasive breast cancer before age 50. Black women are also more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive subtypes, such as triple-negative breast cancer, which is harder to detect and treat and occurs at younger ages.

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are deeply rooted in inequities in social determinants of health, such as access to care, housing, and environmental conditions. Black women are also less likely to receive timely or comprehensive treatment than White women, which contributes to worse survival rates even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors and insurance status.

“Our updated recommendation addresses important inequities in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and death, and we hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” added coauthor Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG.

ACOG’s updated recommendation aligns with that of other leading organizations, including the USPSTF, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of Breast Imaging. This growing consensus among experts is expected to reduce confusion among clinicians and patients regarding when to begin screening, thus improving screening rates in individuals in the 40- to 49-year age group.

Zaritsky and Hill reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has updated its breast cancer screening guidelines, recommending that individuals at an average risk for breast cancer initiate mammography screening at age 40. This change reflects evolving evidence that starting earlier screening yields greater net benefits in reducing breast cancer mortality, particularly for certain racial groups with higher risk factors.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women overall and the leading cause of cancer deaths among Black and Hispanic women. Although mammography has long been recognized as a life-saving tool by detecting cancer early, there has been debate on when screening should begin due to concerns about overdiagnosis, false positives, and potential harms such as unnecessary biopsies.

Recent evidence has prompted ACOG to revise its recommendation for individuals assigned female at birth, including cisgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary individuals. This updated guidance includes individuals with dense breast tissue or a family history of breast cancer but excludes those with higher risk factors, such as a personal history of breast cancer or previous high-risk lesion on a breast biopsy, genetic mutations linked to higher cancer risk, or a history of high-dose radiation therapy to their chest at a young age.

Under the new guidelines, routine screening mammography should start at age 40 and can be performed annually or every 2 years, based on an informed, shared decision-making process that considers the benefits and potential harms of frequent screening.

Previously, ACOG recommended initiating screening between ages 40 and 50, depending on individual risk factors and preferences, with screening required by age 50 at the latest. However, several factors, including an increasing incidence of breast cancer in younger women, have influenced the decision to lower the recommended starting age.
 

Increasing Incidence Among Younger Women

Between 2015 and 2019, the incidence of invasive breast cancer in women aged 40-49 years increased by approximately 2% per year.

“There has been a concerning trend of increasing breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, and new data shows that earlier screening could make a significant difference in decreasing breast cancer deaths,” said Eve Zaritsky, MD, FACOG, coauthor of the clinical practice update. “While screening can sometimes cause anxiety for people and even unnecessary follow-up, the benefits of diagnosing breast cancer earlier outweigh those risks enough to warrant starting to get mammograms at age 40.”

Studies commissioned by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) show that starting mammography at age 40 provides a greater overall benefit than beginning at age 50. Early screening reduces the number of breast cancer deaths and increases life years gained when weighed against the harms of false positives, overdiagnosis, and benign biopsies.
 

Addressing Health Inequities

The benefits of earlier screening are expected to be particularly significant for Black women, who have disproportionately high mortality rates from breast cancer. Even though Black women have a lower overall incidence of breast cancer than White women, they have a 40% higher 5-year age-adjusted mortality rate from the disease and a 45% increased incidence of invasive breast cancer before age 50. Black women are also more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive subtypes, such as triple-negative breast cancer, which is harder to detect and treat and occurs at younger ages.

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are deeply rooted in inequities in social determinants of health, such as access to care, housing, and environmental conditions. Black women are also less likely to receive timely or comprehensive treatment than White women, which contributes to worse survival rates even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors and insurance status.

“Our updated recommendation addresses important inequities in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and death, and we hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” added coauthor Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG.

ACOG’s updated recommendation aligns with that of other leading organizations, including the USPSTF, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of Breast Imaging. This growing consensus among experts is expected to reduce confusion among clinicians and patients regarding when to begin screening, thus improving screening rates in individuals in the 40- to 49-year age group.

Zaritsky and Hill reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has updated its breast cancer screening guidelines, recommending that individuals at an average risk for breast cancer initiate mammography screening at age 40. This change reflects evolving evidence that starting earlier screening yields greater net benefits in reducing breast cancer mortality, particularly for certain racial groups with higher risk factors.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women overall and the leading cause of cancer deaths among Black and Hispanic women. Although mammography has long been recognized as a life-saving tool by detecting cancer early, there has been debate on when screening should begin due to concerns about overdiagnosis, false positives, and potential harms such as unnecessary biopsies.

Recent evidence has prompted ACOG to revise its recommendation for individuals assigned female at birth, including cisgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary individuals. This updated guidance includes individuals with dense breast tissue or a family history of breast cancer but excludes those with higher risk factors, such as a personal history of breast cancer or previous high-risk lesion on a breast biopsy, genetic mutations linked to higher cancer risk, or a history of high-dose radiation therapy to their chest at a young age.

Under the new guidelines, routine screening mammography should start at age 40 and can be performed annually or every 2 years, based on an informed, shared decision-making process that considers the benefits and potential harms of frequent screening.

Previously, ACOG recommended initiating screening between ages 40 and 50, depending on individual risk factors and preferences, with screening required by age 50 at the latest. However, several factors, including an increasing incidence of breast cancer in younger women, have influenced the decision to lower the recommended starting age.
 

Increasing Incidence Among Younger Women

Between 2015 and 2019, the incidence of invasive breast cancer in women aged 40-49 years increased by approximately 2% per year.

“There has been a concerning trend of increasing breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, and new data shows that earlier screening could make a significant difference in decreasing breast cancer deaths,” said Eve Zaritsky, MD, FACOG, coauthor of the clinical practice update. “While screening can sometimes cause anxiety for people and even unnecessary follow-up, the benefits of diagnosing breast cancer earlier outweigh those risks enough to warrant starting to get mammograms at age 40.”

Studies commissioned by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) show that starting mammography at age 40 provides a greater overall benefit than beginning at age 50. Early screening reduces the number of breast cancer deaths and increases life years gained when weighed against the harms of false positives, overdiagnosis, and benign biopsies.
 

Addressing Health Inequities

The benefits of earlier screening are expected to be particularly significant for Black women, who have disproportionately high mortality rates from breast cancer. Even though Black women have a lower overall incidence of breast cancer than White women, they have a 40% higher 5-year age-adjusted mortality rate from the disease and a 45% increased incidence of invasive breast cancer before age 50. Black women are also more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive subtypes, such as triple-negative breast cancer, which is harder to detect and treat and occurs at younger ages.

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are deeply rooted in inequities in social determinants of health, such as access to care, housing, and environmental conditions. Black women are also less likely to receive timely or comprehensive treatment than White women, which contributes to worse survival rates even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors and insurance status.

“Our updated recommendation addresses important inequities in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and death, and we hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” added coauthor Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG.

ACOG’s updated recommendation aligns with that of other leading organizations, including the USPSTF, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of Breast Imaging. This growing consensus among experts is expected to reduce confusion among clinicians and patients regarding when to begin screening, thus improving screening rates in individuals in the 40- to 49-year age group.

Zaritsky and Hill reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will conduct a scientific assessment to find out in whether kidney cancer should be considered a presumptive service-connected condition for veterans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs). This assessment is the first step in the VA presumptive condition investigative process, which could allow exposed veterans who were exposed to PFAs during their service to access more VA services.

A class of more than 12,000 chemicals, PFAs have been used in the military since the early 1970s in many items, including military-grade firefighting foam. Studies have already suggested links between the so-called forever chemicals and cancer, particularly kidney cancer.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is assessing contamination at hundreds of sites, while the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DoD stop using those foams starting in October and remove all stocks from active and former installations and equipment. That may not happen until next year, though, because the DoD has requested a waiver through October 2025 and may extend it through 2026.

When a condition is considered presumptive, eligible veterans do not need to prove their service caused their disease to receive benefits. As part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to expand benefits and services for toxin-exposed veterans and their families, the VA expedited health care and benefits eligibility under the PACT Act by several years—including extending presumptions for head cancer, neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, reproductive cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hypertension for Vietnam era veterans. The VA has also extended presumptions for > 300 new conditions, most recently for male breast cancer, urethral cancer, and cancer of the paraurethral glands.

Whether a condition is an established presumptive condition or not, the VA will consider claims on a case-by-case basis and can grant disability compensation benefits if sufficient evidence of service connection is found. “[M]ake no mistake: Veterans should not wait for the outcome of this review to apply for the benefits and care they deserve,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a release.  “If you’re a veteran and believe your military service has negatively impacted your health, we encourage you to apply for VA care and benefits today.”

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed scientific assessment between PFAs exposure and kidney cancer via the Federal Register. The VA is set to host a listening session on Nov. 19, 2024, to allow individuals to share research and input. Interested individuals may register to participate. The public may also comment via either forum on other conditions that would benefit from review for potential service-connection.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will conduct a scientific assessment to find out in whether kidney cancer should be considered a presumptive service-connected condition for veterans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs). This assessment is the first step in the VA presumptive condition investigative process, which could allow exposed veterans who were exposed to PFAs during their service to access more VA services.

A class of more than 12,000 chemicals, PFAs have been used in the military since the early 1970s in many items, including military-grade firefighting foam. Studies have already suggested links between the so-called forever chemicals and cancer, particularly kidney cancer.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is assessing contamination at hundreds of sites, while the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DoD stop using those foams starting in October and remove all stocks from active and former installations and equipment. That may not happen until next year, though, because the DoD has requested a waiver through October 2025 and may extend it through 2026.

When a condition is considered presumptive, eligible veterans do not need to prove their service caused their disease to receive benefits. As part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to expand benefits and services for toxin-exposed veterans and their families, the VA expedited health care and benefits eligibility under the PACT Act by several years—including extending presumptions for head cancer, neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, reproductive cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hypertension for Vietnam era veterans. The VA has also extended presumptions for > 300 new conditions, most recently for male breast cancer, urethral cancer, and cancer of the paraurethral glands.

Whether a condition is an established presumptive condition or not, the VA will consider claims on a case-by-case basis and can grant disability compensation benefits if sufficient evidence of service connection is found. “[M]ake no mistake: Veterans should not wait for the outcome of this review to apply for the benefits and care they deserve,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a release.  “If you’re a veteran and believe your military service has negatively impacted your health, we encourage you to apply for VA care and benefits today.”

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed scientific assessment between PFAs exposure and kidney cancer via the Federal Register. The VA is set to host a listening session on Nov. 19, 2024, to allow individuals to share research and input. Interested individuals may register to participate. The public may also comment via either forum on other conditions that would benefit from review for potential service-connection.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will conduct a scientific assessment to find out in whether kidney cancer should be considered a presumptive service-connected condition for veterans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs). This assessment is the first step in the VA presumptive condition investigative process, which could allow exposed veterans who were exposed to PFAs during their service to access more VA services.

A class of more than 12,000 chemicals, PFAs have been used in the military since the early 1970s in many items, including military-grade firefighting foam. Studies have already suggested links between the so-called forever chemicals and cancer, particularly kidney cancer.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is assessing contamination at hundreds of sites, while the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DoD stop using those foams starting in October and remove all stocks from active and former installations and equipment. That may not happen until next year, though, because the DoD has requested a waiver through October 2025 and may extend it through 2026.

When a condition is considered presumptive, eligible veterans do not need to prove their service caused their disease to receive benefits. As part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to expand benefits and services for toxin-exposed veterans and their families, the VA expedited health care and benefits eligibility under the PACT Act by several years—including extending presumptions for head cancer, neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, reproductive cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hypertension for Vietnam era veterans. The VA has also extended presumptions for > 300 new conditions, most recently for male breast cancer, urethral cancer, and cancer of the paraurethral glands.

Whether a condition is an established presumptive condition or not, the VA will consider claims on a case-by-case basis and can grant disability compensation benefits if sufficient evidence of service connection is found. “[M]ake no mistake: Veterans should not wait for the outcome of this review to apply for the benefits and care they deserve,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a release.  “If you’re a veteran and believe your military service has negatively impacted your health, we encourage you to apply for VA care and benefits today.”

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed scientific assessment between PFAs exposure and kidney cancer via the Federal Register. The VA is set to host a listening session on Nov. 19, 2024, to allow individuals to share research and input. Interested individuals may register to participate. The public may also comment via either forum on other conditions that would benefit from review for potential service-connection.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.