AVAHO

Fewer than one-third of cancer patients pay out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling services.

But even among those who do, the cost is $16 or less, a cohort study shows.

“The findings highlight the relatively low financial costs of genetic counseling, a form of care with potentially substantial implications for cancer treatment,” lead author Mya Roberson, PhD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues explained.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.

Genetic counseling is an important feature of cancer care that can affect treatment decisions and surveillance. But coverage of genetic counseling services varies across insurance types.

To understand the costs to patients, the investigators used data from IBM Watson Health MarketScan to create a cohort of privately insured patients with breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer who had at least one genetic counseling session from 2013 to the end of 2019.

Dr. Roberson and colleagues then calculated out-of-pocket costs – including coinsurance, copayments, and deductibles – and total costs paid on claims for genetic counseling encounters. The cohort included 16,791 patients, the majority of whom had breast cancer.

Although the median insurance payment for genetic counseling encounters was $118 ($58-$211), most patients paid nothing out of pocket for these services. Among the 31% of patients with an out-of-pocket expense, the cost was $16 or less.

Compared with breast cancer patients, men with prostate cancer were 28% more likely to have out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling, which may “reflect a lack of awareness about the medical necessity of genetic counseling,” the authors suggested.

Overall, the study highlights the value of genetic counseling in cancer care.

“Cancer genetic counseling not only promotes informed decision-making about genetic testing and cancer treatment in the era of precision medicine, but it also is a form of low-cost, high-value care,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Roberson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fewer than one-third of cancer patients pay out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling services.

But even among those who do, the cost is $16 or less, a cohort study shows.

“The findings highlight the relatively low financial costs of genetic counseling, a form of care with potentially substantial implications for cancer treatment,” lead author Mya Roberson, PhD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues explained.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.

Genetic counseling is an important feature of cancer care that can affect treatment decisions and surveillance. But coverage of genetic counseling services varies across insurance types.

To understand the costs to patients, the investigators used data from IBM Watson Health MarketScan to create a cohort of privately insured patients with breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer who had at least one genetic counseling session from 2013 to the end of 2019.

Dr. Roberson and colleagues then calculated out-of-pocket costs – including coinsurance, copayments, and deductibles – and total costs paid on claims for genetic counseling encounters. The cohort included 16,791 patients, the majority of whom had breast cancer.

Although the median insurance payment for genetic counseling encounters was $118 ($58-$211), most patients paid nothing out of pocket for these services. Among the 31% of patients with an out-of-pocket expense, the cost was $16 or less.

Compared with breast cancer patients, men with prostate cancer were 28% more likely to have out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling, which may “reflect a lack of awareness about the medical necessity of genetic counseling,” the authors suggested.

Overall, the study highlights the value of genetic counseling in cancer care.

“Cancer genetic counseling not only promotes informed decision-making about genetic testing and cancer treatment in the era of precision medicine, but it also is a form of low-cost, high-value care,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Roberson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fewer than one-third of cancer patients pay out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling services.

But even among those who do, the cost is $16 or less, a cohort study shows.

“The findings highlight the relatively low financial costs of genetic counseling, a form of care with potentially substantial implications for cancer treatment,” lead author Mya Roberson, PhD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues explained.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.

Genetic counseling is an important feature of cancer care that can affect treatment decisions and surveillance. But coverage of genetic counseling services varies across insurance types.

To understand the costs to patients, the investigators used data from IBM Watson Health MarketScan to create a cohort of privately insured patients with breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer who had at least one genetic counseling session from 2013 to the end of 2019.

Dr. Roberson and colleagues then calculated out-of-pocket costs – including coinsurance, copayments, and deductibles – and total costs paid on claims for genetic counseling encounters. The cohort included 16,791 patients, the majority of whom had breast cancer.

Although the median insurance payment for genetic counseling encounters was $118 ($58-$211), most patients paid nothing out of pocket for these services. Among the 31% of patients with an out-of-pocket expense, the cost was $16 or less.

Compared with breast cancer patients, men with prostate cancer were 28% more likely to have out-of-pocket costs for genetic counseling, which may “reflect a lack of awareness about the medical necessity of genetic counseling,” the authors suggested.

Overall, the study highlights the value of genetic counseling in cancer care.

“Cancer genetic counseling not only promotes informed decision-making about genetic testing and cancer treatment in the era of precision medicine, but it also is a form of low-cost, high-value care,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Roberson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism for patients with cancer, including those with cancer and COVID-19, have been released by the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC), an academic working group of VTE experts.

“Because patients with cancer have a baseline increased risk of VTE, compared with patients without cancer, the combination of both COVID-19 and cancer – and its effect on VTE risk and treatment – is of concern,” said the authors, led by Dominique Farge, MD, PhD, Nord Universite de Paris.

The updated 2022 ITAC guidelines cover new evidence on the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis, including for patients with cancer and COVID-19, they added.

The new guidelines were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“Cancer-associated VTE remains an important clinical problem, associated with increased morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Farge and colleagues observed.

“The ITAC guidelines’ companion free web-based mobile application will assist the practicing clinician with decision making at various levels to provide optimal care of patients with cancer to treat and prevent VTE,” they emphasized. More information is available at itaccme.com.
 

Cancer patients with COVID

The new section of the guidelines notes that the treatment and prevention of VTE for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain the same as for patients without COVID.

Whether or not cancer patients with COVID-19 are hospitalized, have been discharged, or are ambulatory, they should be assessed for the risk of VTE, as should any other patient. For cancer patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized, pharmacologic prophylaxis should be given at the same dose and anticoagulant type as for hospitalized cancer patients who do not have COVID-19.

Following discharge, VTE prophylaxis is not advised for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and routine primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE for ambulatory patients with COVID-19 is also not recommended, the authors noted.
 

Initial treatment of established VTE

Initial treatment of established VTE for up to 10 days of anticoagulation should include low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) when creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“A regimen of LMWH, taken once per day, is recommended unless a twice-per-day regimen is required because of patients’ characteristics,” the authors noted. These characteristics include a high risk of bleeding, moderate renal failure, and the need for technical intervention, including surgery.

If a twice-a-day regimen is required, only enoxaparin at a dose of 1 mg/kg twice daily can be used, the authors cautioned.

For patients with a low risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or apixaban (Eliquis) can be given in the first 10 days, as well as edoxaban (Lixiana). The latter should be started after at least 5 days of parenteral anticoagulation, provided creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“Unfractionated heparin as well as fondaparinux (GlaxoSmithKline) can be also used for the initial treatment of established VTE when LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants are contraindicated,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Thrombolysis can be considered on a case-by-case basis, although physicians must pay attention to specific contraindications, especially bleeding risk.

“In the initial treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters might be considered when anticoagulant treatment is contraindicated or, in the case of pulmonary embolism, when recurrence occurs under optimal anticoagulation,” the authors noted.
 

Maintenance VTE treatment

For maintenance therapy, which the authors define as early maintenance for up to 6 months and long-term maintenance beyond 6 months, they point out that LMWHs are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of VTE when the creatinine clearance is again at least 30 mL/min.

Any of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) – edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban – is also recommended for the same patients, provided there is no risk of inducing a strong drug-drug interaction or GI absorption is impaired.

However, the DOAs should be used with caution for patients with GI malignancies, especially upper GI cancers, because data show there is an increased risk of GI bleeding with both edoxaban and rivaroxaban.

“LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants should be used for a minimum of 6 months to treat established VTE in patients with cancer,” the authors wrote.

“After 6 months, termination or continuation of anticoagulation (LMWH, direct oral anticoagulants, or vitamin K antagonists) should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio,” they added.
 

Treatment of VTE recurrence

The guideline authors explain that three options can be considered in the event of VTE recurrence. These include an increase in the LMWH dose by 20%-25%, or a switch to a DOA, or, if patients are taking a DOA, a switch to an LMWH. If the patient is taking a vitamin K antagonist, it can be switched to either an LMWH or a DOA.

For treatment of catheter-related thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment is recommended for a minimum of 3 months and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. In this setting, the LMWHs are recommended.

The central venous catheter can be kept in place if it is functional, well positioned, and is not infected, provided there is good resolution of symptoms under close surveillance while anticoagulants are being administered.

In surgically treated patients, the LMWH, given once a day, to patients with a serum creatinine concentration of at least 30 mL/min can be used to prevent VTE. Alternatively, VTE can be prevented by the use low-dose unfractionated heparin, given three times a day.

“Pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 2-12 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days,” Dr. Farge and colleagues advised. In this setting, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of fondaparinux or a DOA as an alternative to an LMWH for the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE. “Use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH to prevent postoperative VTE in patients with cancer is recommended,” the authors advised.

Furthermore, extended prophylaxis of at least 4 weeks with LMWH is advised to prevent postoperative VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. Mechanical methods are not recommended except when pharmacologic methods are contraindicated. Inferior vena cava filters are also not recommended for routine prophylaxis.
 

Patients with reduced mobility

For medically treated hospitalized patients with cancer whose mobility is reduced, the authors recommend prophylaxis with either an LMWH or fondaparinux, provided their creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min. These patients can also be treated with unfractionated heparin, they add.

In contrast, DOAs are not recommended – at least not routinely – in this setting, the authors cautioned. Primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE with either LMWH or DOAs – either rivaroxaban or apixaban – is indicated in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy, provided they are at low risk of bleeding.

However, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH is not recommended outside of a clinical trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who are undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, even for patients who are at low risk of bleeding.

For ambulatory patients who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy and who are at intermediate risk of VTE, primary prophylaxis with rivaroxaban or apixaban is recommended for those with myeloma who are receiving immunomodulatory therapy plus steroids or other systemic therapies.

In this setting, oral anticoagulants should consist of a vitamin K antagonist, given at low or therapeutic doses, or apixaban, given at prophylactic doses. Alternatively, LMWH, given at prophylactic doses, or low-dose aspirin, given at a dose of 100 mg/day, can be used.
 

Catheter-related thrombosis

Use of anticoagulation for routine prophylaxis of catheter-related thrombosis is not recommended. Catheters should be inserted on the right side in the jugular vein, and the distal extremity of the central catheter should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium. “In patients requiring central venous catheters, we suggest the use of implanted ports over peripheral inserted central catheter lines,” the authors noted.

The authors described a number of unique situations regarding the treatment of VTE. These situations include patients with a brain tumor, for whom treatment of established VTE should favor either LMWH or a DOA. The authors also recommended the use of LMWH or unfractionated heparin, started postoperatively, for the prevention of VTE for patients undergoing neurosurgery.

In contrast, pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE in medically treated patients with a brain tumor who are not undergoing neurosurgery is not recommended. “In the presence of severe renal failure...we suggest using unfractionated heparin followed by early vitamin K antagonists (possibly from day 1) or LMWH adjusted to anti-Xa concentration of the treatment of established VTE,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Anticoagulant treatment is also recommended for a minimum of 3 months for children with symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. For children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are undergoing induction chemotherapy, LMWH is also recommended as thromboprophylaxis.

For children who require a central venous catheter, the authors suggested that physicians use implanted ports over peripherally inserted central lines.

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

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism for patients with cancer, including those with cancer and COVID-19, have been released by the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC), an academic working group of VTE experts.

“Because patients with cancer have a baseline increased risk of VTE, compared with patients without cancer, the combination of both COVID-19 and cancer – and its effect on VTE risk and treatment – is of concern,” said the authors, led by Dominique Farge, MD, PhD, Nord Universite de Paris.

The updated 2022 ITAC guidelines cover new evidence on the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis, including for patients with cancer and COVID-19, they added.

The new guidelines were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“Cancer-associated VTE remains an important clinical problem, associated with increased morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Farge and colleagues observed.

“The ITAC guidelines’ companion free web-based mobile application will assist the practicing clinician with decision making at various levels to provide optimal care of patients with cancer to treat and prevent VTE,” they emphasized. More information is available at itaccme.com.
 

Cancer patients with COVID

The new section of the guidelines notes that the treatment and prevention of VTE for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain the same as for patients without COVID.

Whether or not cancer patients with COVID-19 are hospitalized, have been discharged, or are ambulatory, they should be assessed for the risk of VTE, as should any other patient. For cancer patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized, pharmacologic prophylaxis should be given at the same dose and anticoagulant type as for hospitalized cancer patients who do not have COVID-19.

Following discharge, VTE prophylaxis is not advised for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and routine primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE for ambulatory patients with COVID-19 is also not recommended, the authors noted.
 

Initial treatment of established VTE

Initial treatment of established VTE for up to 10 days of anticoagulation should include low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) when creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“A regimen of LMWH, taken once per day, is recommended unless a twice-per-day regimen is required because of patients’ characteristics,” the authors noted. These characteristics include a high risk of bleeding, moderate renal failure, and the need for technical intervention, including surgery.

If a twice-a-day regimen is required, only enoxaparin at a dose of 1 mg/kg twice daily can be used, the authors cautioned.

For patients with a low risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or apixaban (Eliquis) can be given in the first 10 days, as well as edoxaban (Lixiana). The latter should be started after at least 5 days of parenteral anticoagulation, provided creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“Unfractionated heparin as well as fondaparinux (GlaxoSmithKline) can be also used for the initial treatment of established VTE when LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants are contraindicated,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Thrombolysis can be considered on a case-by-case basis, although physicians must pay attention to specific contraindications, especially bleeding risk.

“In the initial treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters might be considered when anticoagulant treatment is contraindicated or, in the case of pulmonary embolism, when recurrence occurs under optimal anticoagulation,” the authors noted.
 

Maintenance VTE treatment

For maintenance therapy, which the authors define as early maintenance for up to 6 months and long-term maintenance beyond 6 months, they point out that LMWHs are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of VTE when the creatinine clearance is again at least 30 mL/min.

Any of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) – edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban – is also recommended for the same patients, provided there is no risk of inducing a strong drug-drug interaction or GI absorption is impaired.

However, the DOAs should be used with caution for patients with GI malignancies, especially upper GI cancers, because data show there is an increased risk of GI bleeding with both edoxaban and rivaroxaban.

“LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants should be used for a minimum of 6 months to treat established VTE in patients with cancer,” the authors wrote.

“After 6 months, termination or continuation of anticoagulation (LMWH, direct oral anticoagulants, or vitamin K antagonists) should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio,” they added.
 

Treatment of VTE recurrence

The guideline authors explain that three options can be considered in the event of VTE recurrence. These include an increase in the LMWH dose by 20%-25%, or a switch to a DOA, or, if patients are taking a DOA, a switch to an LMWH. If the patient is taking a vitamin K antagonist, it can be switched to either an LMWH or a DOA.

For treatment of catheter-related thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment is recommended for a minimum of 3 months and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. In this setting, the LMWHs are recommended.

The central venous catheter can be kept in place if it is functional, well positioned, and is not infected, provided there is good resolution of symptoms under close surveillance while anticoagulants are being administered.

In surgically treated patients, the LMWH, given once a day, to patients with a serum creatinine concentration of at least 30 mL/min can be used to prevent VTE. Alternatively, VTE can be prevented by the use low-dose unfractionated heparin, given three times a day.

“Pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 2-12 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days,” Dr. Farge and colleagues advised. In this setting, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of fondaparinux or a DOA as an alternative to an LMWH for the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE. “Use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH to prevent postoperative VTE in patients with cancer is recommended,” the authors advised.

Furthermore, extended prophylaxis of at least 4 weeks with LMWH is advised to prevent postoperative VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. Mechanical methods are not recommended except when pharmacologic methods are contraindicated. Inferior vena cava filters are also not recommended for routine prophylaxis.
 

Patients with reduced mobility

For medically treated hospitalized patients with cancer whose mobility is reduced, the authors recommend prophylaxis with either an LMWH or fondaparinux, provided their creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min. These patients can also be treated with unfractionated heparin, they add.

In contrast, DOAs are not recommended – at least not routinely – in this setting, the authors cautioned. Primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE with either LMWH or DOAs – either rivaroxaban or apixaban – is indicated in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy, provided they are at low risk of bleeding.

However, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH is not recommended outside of a clinical trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who are undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, even for patients who are at low risk of bleeding.

For ambulatory patients who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy and who are at intermediate risk of VTE, primary prophylaxis with rivaroxaban or apixaban is recommended for those with myeloma who are receiving immunomodulatory therapy plus steroids or other systemic therapies.

In this setting, oral anticoagulants should consist of a vitamin K antagonist, given at low or therapeutic doses, or apixaban, given at prophylactic doses. Alternatively, LMWH, given at prophylactic doses, or low-dose aspirin, given at a dose of 100 mg/day, can be used.
 

Catheter-related thrombosis

Use of anticoagulation for routine prophylaxis of catheter-related thrombosis is not recommended. Catheters should be inserted on the right side in the jugular vein, and the distal extremity of the central catheter should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium. “In patients requiring central venous catheters, we suggest the use of implanted ports over peripheral inserted central catheter lines,” the authors noted.

The authors described a number of unique situations regarding the treatment of VTE. These situations include patients with a brain tumor, for whom treatment of established VTE should favor either LMWH or a DOA. The authors also recommended the use of LMWH or unfractionated heparin, started postoperatively, for the prevention of VTE for patients undergoing neurosurgery.

In contrast, pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE in medically treated patients with a brain tumor who are not undergoing neurosurgery is not recommended. “In the presence of severe renal failure...we suggest using unfractionated heparin followed by early vitamin K antagonists (possibly from day 1) or LMWH adjusted to anti-Xa concentration of the treatment of established VTE,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Anticoagulant treatment is also recommended for a minimum of 3 months for children with symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. For children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are undergoing induction chemotherapy, LMWH is also recommended as thromboprophylaxis.

For children who require a central venous catheter, the authors suggested that physicians use implanted ports over peripherally inserted central lines.

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

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism for patients with cancer, including those with cancer and COVID-19, have been released by the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC), an academic working group of VTE experts.

“Because patients with cancer have a baseline increased risk of VTE, compared with patients without cancer, the combination of both COVID-19 and cancer – and its effect on VTE risk and treatment – is of concern,” said the authors, led by Dominique Farge, MD, PhD, Nord Universite de Paris.

The updated 2022 ITAC guidelines cover new evidence on the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis, including for patients with cancer and COVID-19, they added.

The new guidelines were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

“Cancer-associated VTE remains an important clinical problem, associated with increased morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Farge and colleagues observed.

“The ITAC guidelines’ companion free web-based mobile application will assist the practicing clinician with decision making at various levels to provide optimal care of patients with cancer to treat and prevent VTE,” they emphasized. More information is available at itaccme.com.
 

Cancer patients with COVID

The new section of the guidelines notes that the treatment and prevention of VTE for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain the same as for patients without COVID.

Whether or not cancer patients with COVID-19 are hospitalized, have been discharged, or are ambulatory, they should be assessed for the risk of VTE, as should any other patient. For cancer patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized, pharmacologic prophylaxis should be given at the same dose and anticoagulant type as for hospitalized cancer patients who do not have COVID-19.

Following discharge, VTE prophylaxis is not advised for cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and routine primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE for ambulatory patients with COVID-19 is also not recommended, the authors noted.
 

Initial treatment of established VTE

Initial treatment of established VTE for up to 10 days of anticoagulation should include low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) when creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“A regimen of LMWH, taken once per day, is recommended unless a twice-per-day regimen is required because of patients’ characteristics,” the authors noted. These characteristics include a high risk of bleeding, moderate renal failure, and the need for technical intervention, including surgery.

If a twice-a-day regimen is required, only enoxaparin at a dose of 1 mg/kg twice daily can be used, the authors cautioned.

For patients with a low risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or apixaban (Eliquis) can be given in the first 10 days, as well as edoxaban (Lixiana). The latter should be started after at least 5 days of parenteral anticoagulation, provided creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min.

“Unfractionated heparin as well as fondaparinux (GlaxoSmithKline) can be also used for the initial treatment of established VTE when LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants are contraindicated,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Thrombolysis can be considered on a case-by-case basis, although physicians must pay attention to specific contraindications, especially bleeding risk.

“In the initial treatment of VTE, inferior vena cava filters might be considered when anticoagulant treatment is contraindicated or, in the case of pulmonary embolism, when recurrence occurs under optimal anticoagulation,” the authors noted.
 

Maintenance VTE treatment

For maintenance therapy, which the authors define as early maintenance for up to 6 months and long-term maintenance beyond 6 months, they point out that LMWHs are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of VTE when the creatinine clearance is again at least 30 mL/min.

Any of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) – edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban – is also recommended for the same patients, provided there is no risk of inducing a strong drug-drug interaction or GI absorption is impaired.

However, the DOAs should be used with caution for patients with GI malignancies, especially upper GI cancers, because data show there is an increased risk of GI bleeding with both edoxaban and rivaroxaban.

“LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants should be used for a minimum of 6 months to treat established VTE in patients with cancer,” the authors wrote.

“After 6 months, termination or continuation of anticoagulation (LMWH, direct oral anticoagulants, or vitamin K antagonists) should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio,” they added.
 

Treatment of VTE recurrence

The guideline authors explain that three options can be considered in the event of VTE recurrence. These include an increase in the LMWH dose by 20%-25%, or a switch to a DOA, or, if patients are taking a DOA, a switch to an LMWH. If the patient is taking a vitamin K antagonist, it can be switched to either an LMWH or a DOA.

For treatment of catheter-related thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment is recommended for a minimum of 3 months and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. In this setting, the LMWHs are recommended.

The central venous catheter can be kept in place if it is functional, well positioned, and is not infected, provided there is good resolution of symptoms under close surveillance while anticoagulants are being administered.

In surgically treated patients, the LMWH, given once a day, to patients with a serum creatinine concentration of at least 30 mL/min can be used to prevent VTE. Alternatively, VTE can be prevented by the use low-dose unfractionated heparin, given three times a day.

“Pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 2-12 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days,” Dr. Farge and colleagues advised. In this setting, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of fondaparinux or a DOA as an alternative to an LMWH for the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE. “Use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH to prevent postoperative VTE in patients with cancer is recommended,” the authors advised.

Furthermore, extended prophylaxis of at least 4 weeks with LMWH is advised to prevent postoperative VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. Mechanical methods are not recommended except when pharmacologic methods are contraindicated. Inferior vena cava filters are also not recommended for routine prophylaxis.
 

Patients with reduced mobility

For medically treated hospitalized patients with cancer whose mobility is reduced, the authors recommend prophylaxis with either an LMWH or fondaparinux, provided their creatinine clearance is at least 30 mL/min. These patients can also be treated with unfractionated heparin, they add.

In contrast, DOAs are not recommended – at least not routinely – in this setting, the authors cautioned. Primary pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE with either LMWH or DOAs – either rivaroxaban or apixaban – is indicated in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy, provided they are at low risk of bleeding.

However, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH is not recommended outside of a clinical trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who are undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, even for patients who are at low risk of bleeding.

For ambulatory patients who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy and who are at intermediate risk of VTE, primary prophylaxis with rivaroxaban or apixaban is recommended for those with myeloma who are receiving immunomodulatory therapy plus steroids or other systemic therapies.

In this setting, oral anticoagulants should consist of a vitamin K antagonist, given at low or therapeutic doses, or apixaban, given at prophylactic doses. Alternatively, LMWH, given at prophylactic doses, or low-dose aspirin, given at a dose of 100 mg/day, can be used.
 

Catheter-related thrombosis

Use of anticoagulation for routine prophylaxis of catheter-related thrombosis is not recommended. Catheters should be inserted on the right side in the jugular vein, and the distal extremity of the central catheter should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium. “In patients requiring central venous catheters, we suggest the use of implanted ports over peripheral inserted central catheter lines,” the authors noted.

The authors described a number of unique situations regarding the treatment of VTE. These situations include patients with a brain tumor, for whom treatment of established VTE should favor either LMWH or a DOA. The authors also recommended the use of LMWH or unfractionated heparin, started postoperatively, for the prevention of VTE for patients undergoing neurosurgery.

In contrast, pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE in medically treated patients with a brain tumor who are not undergoing neurosurgery is not recommended. “In the presence of severe renal failure...we suggest using unfractionated heparin followed by early vitamin K antagonists (possibly from day 1) or LMWH adjusted to anti-Xa concentration of the treatment of established VTE,” Dr. Farge and colleagues wrote.

Anticoagulant treatment is also recommended for a minimum of 3 months for children with symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and as long as the central venous catheter is in place. For children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are undergoing induction chemotherapy, LMWH is also recommended as thromboprophylaxis.

For children who require a central venous catheter, the authors suggested that physicians use implanted ports over peripherally inserted central lines.

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

A novel blood test that can detect up to 50 different cancers from a single blood draw is gaining traction in the United States.

The Galleri blood test is being now offered by a number of United States health networks.

The company marketing the test, GRAIL, has established partnerships with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mercy Health, Ochsner Health, Intermountain Healthcare, Community Health Network, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University, Premier, and Cleveland Clinic, among others.

Cleveland Clinic’s Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological Kidney Institute, is enthusiastic about the test, describing it as a “game-changer” and emphasizing that it can detect many different cancers and at a very early stage.

“It completely changes the way we think about screening for cancer,” commented Jeff Venstrom, MD, chief medical officer at GRAIL. He joined the company because “there are not many things in life where you can be part of a disruptive paradigm and disruptive technology, and this really is disruptive,” he said in an interview.
 

‘The devil is in the details’

But there is some concern among clinicians that widespread clinical use of the test may be premature.

Having a blood test for multiple cancers is a “very good idea, and the scientific basis for this platform is sound,” commented Timothy R. Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

“But the devil is in the details to ensure the test can accurately detect very early cancers and there is a pathway for subsequent workup (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, etc.),” Dr. Rebbeck told this news organization.

Galleri is offering the test to individuals who are older than 50 and have a family history of cancer or those who are high risk for cancer or immunocompromised. They suggest that interested individuals get in touch with their health care professional, who then needs to register with GRAIL and order the test.

As well as needing a prescription, interested individuals will have to pay for it out of pocket, around $950. The test is not covered by medical insurance and is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Falls into primary care setting

Dr. Rebbeck commented that Galleri is a screening test for individuals who don’t have cancer, so the test is intended to fall into the primary care setting. But he warned that “clinical pathways are not yet in place (but are being developed) so that primary care providers can effectively use them.”

The test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA in a blood sample.

The methylation turns genes on or off, explains Cleveland Clinic’s Dr. Klein in his post. “It’s like fingerprints and how fingerprints tell the difference between two people,” he wrote. “The methylation patterns are fingerprints that are characteristic of each kind of cancer. They look one way for lung cancer and different for colon cancer.” 

The test returns one of two possible results: either “positive, cancer signal detected” or “negative, no cancer signal detected.”

According to the company, when a cancer signal is detected, the Galleri test predicts the cancer signal origin “with high accuracy, to help guide the next steps to diagnosis.”

However, one problem for clinical practice is all the follow-up tests an individual may undergo if their test comes back positive, said Sameek Roychowdhury, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

“Not everybody will have an actual cancer, but they may undergo many tests, with a lot of stress and cost and still not find anything. I can tell you every time someone undergoes a test looking for cancer, that is not an easy day,” Dr. Roychowdhury said in an interview.

In a large-scale validation study, the Galleri test had a specificity of 99.5% (false-positive rate of 0.5%), meaning in roughly 200 people tested without cancer, only one person received a false-positive result (that is, “cancer signal detected” when cancer is not present).

The overall sensitivity of the test for any stage of cancer was 51.5%, although it was higher for later-stage cancers (77% for stage III and 90.1% for stage IV) and lower for early-stage cancers (16.8% for stage I and 40.4% for stage II).
 

Exacerbate health disparities?

In Dr. Rebbeck’s view, the characteristics of the test are still “relatively poor for detecting very early cancers, so it will need additional tweaking before it really achieves the goal of multi-cancer EARLY detection,” he said.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledges that the test is “not perfect yet” and says the company will continue to update and improve its performance. “We have some new data coming out in September,” he said.

Clinical data are being accumulated in the United Kingdom, where the Galleri test is being investigated in a large trial run by the National Health Service (NHS). The company recently announced that the enrollment of 140,000 healthy cancer-free volunteers aged 50-77 into this trial has now been completed and claimed this the largest-ever study of a multi-cancer early detection test.

Dr. Roychowdhury said he would encourage anyone interested in the test to join a clinical trial.

Another expert approached for comment last year, when GRAIL first started marketing the test, was in agreement. This test should be viewed as one that is still under clinical investigation, commented William Grady, MD, a member of the clinical research division and public health sciences division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

“The Galleri test is still unproven in the clinical care setting and ... I am concerned that many of the results will be false-positives and will cause many unnecessary follow-up tests and imaging studies as well as anxiety in the people getting the test done,” Dr. Grady said.

Dr. Rebbeck said another issue that needs to be addressed is whether all populations will have access to and benefit from these types of blood tests to screen for cancer, given that they are expensive. 

“There is a great danger – as we have seen with many other technological innovations – that the wealthy and connected benefit, but the majority of the population, and particularly those who are underserved, do not,” Dr. Rebbeck said.

“As a result, health disparities are created or exacerbated. This is something that needs to be addressed so that the future use of these tests will provide equitable benefits,” he added.

Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Roychowdhury have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Venstrom is an employee of GRAIL.

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

A novel blood test that can detect up to 50 different cancers from a single blood draw is gaining traction in the United States.

The Galleri blood test is being now offered by a number of United States health networks.

The company marketing the test, GRAIL, has established partnerships with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mercy Health, Ochsner Health, Intermountain Healthcare, Community Health Network, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University, Premier, and Cleveland Clinic, among others.

Cleveland Clinic’s Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological Kidney Institute, is enthusiastic about the test, describing it as a “game-changer” and emphasizing that it can detect many different cancers and at a very early stage.

“It completely changes the way we think about screening for cancer,” commented Jeff Venstrom, MD, chief medical officer at GRAIL. He joined the company because “there are not many things in life where you can be part of a disruptive paradigm and disruptive technology, and this really is disruptive,” he said in an interview.
 

‘The devil is in the details’

But there is some concern among clinicians that widespread clinical use of the test may be premature.

Having a blood test for multiple cancers is a “very good idea, and the scientific basis for this platform is sound,” commented Timothy R. Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

“But the devil is in the details to ensure the test can accurately detect very early cancers and there is a pathway for subsequent workup (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, etc.),” Dr. Rebbeck told this news organization.

Galleri is offering the test to individuals who are older than 50 and have a family history of cancer or those who are high risk for cancer or immunocompromised. They suggest that interested individuals get in touch with their health care professional, who then needs to register with GRAIL and order the test.

As well as needing a prescription, interested individuals will have to pay for it out of pocket, around $950. The test is not covered by medical insurance and is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Falls into primary care setting

Dr. Rebbeck commented that Galleri is a screening test for individuals who don’t have cancer, so the test is intended to fall into the primary care setting. But he warned that “clinical pathways are not yet in place (but are being developed) so that primary care providers can effectively use them.”

The test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA in a blood sample.

The methylation turns genes on or off, explains Cleveland Clinic’s Dr. Klein in his post. “It’s like fingerprints and how fingerprints tell the difference between two people,” he wrote. “The methylation patterns are fingerprints that are characteristic of each kind of cancer. They look one way for lung cancer and different for colon cancer.” 

The test returns one of two possible results: either “positive, cancer signal detected” or “negative, no cancer signal detected.”

According to the company, when a cancer signal is detected, the Galleri test predicts the cancer signal origin “with high accuracy, to help guide the next steps to diagnosis.”

However, one problem for clinical practice is all the follow-up tests an individual may undergo if their test comes back positive, said Sameek Roychowdhury, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

“Not everybody will have an actual cancer, but they may undergo many tests, with a lot of stress and cost and still not find anything. I can tell you every time someone undergoes a test looking for cancer, that is not an easy day,” Dr. Roychowdhury said in an interview.

In a large-scale validation study, the Galleri test had a specificity of 99.5% (false-positive rate of 0.5%), meaning in roughly 200 people tested without cancer, only one person received a false-positive result (that is, “cancer signal detected” when cancer is not present).

The overall sensitivity of the test for any stage of cancer was 51.5%, although it was higher for later-stage cancers (77% for stage III and 90.1% for stage IV) and lower for early-stage cancers (16.8% for stage I and 40.4% for stage II).
 

Exacerbate health disparities?

In Dr. Rebbeck’s view, the characteristics of the test are still “relatively poor for detecting very early cancers, so it will need additional tweaking before it really achieves the goal of multi-cancer EARLY detection,” he said.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledges that the test is “not perfect yet” and says the company will continue to update and improve its performance. “We have some new data coming out in September,” he said.

Clinical data are being accumulated in the United Kingdom, where the Galleri test is being investigated in a large trial run by the National Health Service (NHS). The company recently announced that the enrollment of 140,000 healthy cancer-free volunteers aged 50-77 into this trial has now been completed and claimed this the largest-ever study of a multi-cancer early detection test.

Dr. Roychowdhury said he would encourage anyone interested in the test to join a clinical trial.

Another expert approached for comment last year, when GRAIL first started marketing the test, was in agreement. This test should be viewed as one that is still under clinical investigation, commented William Grady, MD, a member of the clinical research division and public health sciences division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

“The Galleri test is still unproven in the clinical care setting and ... I am concerned that many of the results will be false-positives and will cause many unnecessary follow-up tests and imaging studies as well as anxiety in the people getting the test done,” Dr. Grady said.

Dr. Rebbeck said another issue that needs to be addressed is whether all populations will have access to and benefit from these types of blood tests to screen for cancer, given that they are expensive. 

“There is a great danger – as we have seen with many other technological innovations – that the wealthy and connected benefit, but the majority of the population, and particularly those who are underserved, do not,” Dr. Rebbeck said.

“As a result, health disparities are created or exacerbated. This is something that needs to be addressed so that the future use of these tests will provide equitable benefits,” he added.

Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Roychowdhury have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Venstrom is an employee of GRAIL.

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

A novel blood test that can detect up to 50 different cancers from a single blood draw is gaining traction in the United States.

The Galleri blood test is being now offered by a number of United States health networks.

The company marketing the test, GRAIL, has established partnerships with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mercy Health, Ochsner Health, Intermountain Healthcare, Community Health Network, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University, Premier, and Cleveland Clinic, among others.

Cleveland Clinic’s Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological Kidney Institute, is enthusiastic about the test, describing it as a “game-changer” and emphasizing that it can detect many different cancers and at a very early stage.

“It completely changes the way we think about screening for cancer,” commented Jeff Venstrom, MD, chief medical officer at GRAIL. He joined the company because “there are not many things in life where you can be part of a disruptive paradigm and disruptive technology, and this really is disruptive,” he said in an interview.
 

‘The devil is in the details’

But there is some concern among clinicians that widespread clinical use of the test may be premature.

Having a blood test for multiple cancers is a “very good idea, and the scientific basis for this platform is sound,” commented Timothy R. Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

“But the devil is in the details to ensure the test can accurately detect very early cancers and there is a pathway for subsequent workup (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, etc.),” Dr. Rebbeck told this news organization.

Galleri is offering the test to individuals who are older than 50 and have a family history of cancer or those who are high risk for cancer or immunocompromised. They suggest that interested individuals get in touch with their health care professional, who then needs to register with GRAIL and order the test.

As well as needing a prescription, interested individuals will have to pay for it out of pocket, around $950. The test is not covered by medical insurance and is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Falls into primary care setting

Dr. Rebbeck commented that Galleri is a screening test for individuals who don’t have cancer, so the test is intended to fall into the primary care setting. But he warned that “clinical pathways are not yet in place (but are being developed) so that primary care providers can effectively use them.”

The test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA in a blood sample.

The methylation turns genes on or off, explains Cleveland Clinic’s Dr. Klein in his post. “It’s like fingerprints and how fingerprints tell the difference between two people,” he wrote. “The methylation patterns are fingerprints that are characteristic of each kind of cancer. They look one way for lung cancer and different for colon cancer.” 

The test returns one of two possible results: either “positive, cancer signal detected” or “negative, no cancer signal detected.”

According to the company, when a cancer signal is detected, the Galleri test predicts the cancer signal origin “with high accuracy, to help guide the next steps to diagnosis.”

However, one problem for clinical practice is all the follow-up tests an individual may undergo if their test comes back positive, said Sameek Roychowdhury, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

“Not everybody will have an actual cancer, but they may undergo many tests, with a lot of stress and cost and still not find anything. I can tell you every time someone undergoes a test looking for cancer, that is not an easy day,” Dr. Roychowdhury said in an interview.

In a large-scale validation study, the Galleri test had a specificity of 99.5% (false-positive rate of 0.5%), meaning in roughly 200 people tested without cancer, only one person received a false-positive result (that is, “cancer signal detected” when cancer is not present).

The overall sensitivity of the test for any stage of cancer was 51.5%, although it was higher for later-stage cancers (77% for stage III and 90.1% for stage IV) and lower for early-stage cancers (16.8% for stage I and 40.4% for stage II).
 

Exacerbate health disparities?

In Dr. Rebbeck’s view, the characteristics of the test are still “relatively poor for detecting very early cancers, so it will need additional tweaking before it really achieves the goal of multi-cancer EARLY detection,” he said.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledges that the test is “not perfect yet” and says the company will continue to update and improve its performance. “We have some new data coming out in September,” he said.

Clinical data are being accumulated in the United Kingdom, where the Galleri test is being investigated in a large trial run by the National Health Service (NHS). The company recently announced that the enrollment of 140,000 healthy cancer-free volunteers aged 50-77 into this trial has now been completed and claimed this the largest-ever study of a multi-cancer early detection test.

Dr. Roychowdhury said he would encourage anyone interested in the test to join a clinical trial.

Another expert approached for comment last year, when GRAIL first started marketing the test, was in agreement. This test should be viewed as one that is still under clinical investigation, commented William Grady, MD, a member of the clinical research division and public health sciences division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

“The Galleri test is still unproven in the clinical care setting and ... I am concerned that many of the results will be false-positives and will cause many unnecessary follow-up tests and imaging studies as well as anxiety in the people getting the test done,” Dr. Grady said.

Dr. Rebbeck said another issue that needs to be addressed is whether all populations will have access to and benefit from these types of blood tests to screen for cancer, given that they are expensive. 

“There is a great danger – as we have seen with many other technological innovations – that the wealthy and connected benefit, but the majority of the population, and particularly those who are underserved, do not,” Dr. Rebbeck said.

“As a result, health disparities are created or exacerbated. This is something that needs to be addressed so that the future use of these tests will provide equitable benefits,” he added.

Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Roychowdhury have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Venstrom is an employee of GRAIL.

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

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiation therapy, along with surgery and systemic therapy, is a primary therapeutic modality for cancer management. At least half of cancer patients receive radiation as part of their treatment regimen.¹ Multiple studies demonstrate that radiotherapy is underutilized worldwide.² One reason for underutilization of radiotherapy globally is poor access to this treatment modality. Factors that contribute to poor access include long wait times for consultation, delays in treatment initiation, distance to a treatment facility, and poor coordination of care.

Taskforce Findings

The presence of onsite radiation oncology and its impact on utilization of radiotherapy is poorly studied. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recently conducted a survey to determine the barriers to referral and timeliness of treatment for palliative radiotherapy within the VHA.³ Key findings of this study comparing centers with onsite radiation departments with centers without onsite radiation departments include:

a. Radiation consults are more likely to be completed within 1 week of consult request at centers with onsite radiation therapy (68% vs 31%, respectively; P = .01).

b. Centers with onsite radiation therapy more frequently deliver emergent treatment within 24 hours for patients with spinal cord compression, an emergency condition in which prompt radiation can prevent or minimize long-term neurologic disability (94% vs 70%, respectively; P = .01).

c. Referring practitioners with onsite radiation departments are less likely to report difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy (0% vs 20%, respectively; P = .006).

d. Referring practitioners with onsite radiotherapy report patient travel as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy less frequently (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

e. Practitioners with onsite radiation oncology departments are more likely to have multidisciplinary tumor boards (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01) and are more likely to be influenced by radiation oncology recommendations at tumor boards (69% vs 44%, respectively; P = .02).

Based on the findings of this study, the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce has prepared this consensus statement regarding the importance of onsite radiation oncology departments at VHA medical centers. More information regarding our 5 key findings and their implications for patient care are as follows:

Timeliness of Radiation Oncology Consultation

Delays in radiation oncology consultation, which can also delay treatment initiation, are associated with poor satisfaction among both patients and referring clinicians.⁴ Wait times have been identified as a barrier to utilization of radiotherapy by both patients and clinicians.^5,6 Furthermore, delays in initiation of definitive therapy have been associated with worse outcomes, including worse overall survival.^7,8 Our survey study demonstrates that consults for palliative radiotherapy are occurring in a more timely manner at centers with onsite radiation departments. Radiation oncology consults are more frequently completed within 1 week at centers with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with centers without onsite radiation oncology departments (68% vs 31%, P = .01). This trend would likely be seen for nonpalliative, definitive cases as well. The presence of radiation oncology departments onsite at VHA medical centers is an important component of timely care for veterans to optimize outcomes of cancer treatment.

Timely Delivery of Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies

There are a few scenarios in which emergent radiation treatment, within 24 hours, is indicated. These include malignant spinal cord compression, uncal herniation from brain metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, and tumor hemorrhage.⁹ Studies on management of metastatic spinal cord compression demonstrate that delays in treatment are associated with reduced ambulation¹⁰ as well as loss of sphincter function and incontinence.¹¹

Our study demonstrates that VHA medical centers with onsite radiotherapy more frequently deliver radiotherapy within 24 hours for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. This timely delivery of treatment is critical to optimizing functional status and quality of life in patients requiring treatment for oncologic emergencies. Revisiting treatment pathways for such situations at regular intervals is crucial given that residents and staff may rotate and be unfamiliar with emergency protocols.

Communication With Radiation Oncologists

Several studies have demonstrated that the inability to contact a radiation oncologist and poor communication result in decreased referrals for palliative radiotherapy.^12,13 Our study demonstrates that onsite radiation oncology is associated with improved ability to contact a radiation oncologist. About 20% of clinicians at facilities without onsite radiation oncology reported difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist, compared with 0% at facilities with onsite radiation departments (P = .006).

It is possible that increased radiation oncology presence at VHA medical centers, through attenuation of barriers related to contacting a radiation oncologist and improved communication, would lead to increased use of radiotherapy. Increased communication between referring clinicians and radiation oncologists also can help with education of those clinicians making the referral. Since knowledge gaps have been identified in multiple studies as a barrier to referral for radiotherapy, such communication and increased education on the role of radiotherapy could increase use.^12-14

Patient Travel

Patient ability to travel was the most commonly reported barrier (81%) to referral for palliative radiotherapy in our study. Travel time and transportation difficulties have been established in multiple studies as barriers to radiotherapy for both definitive and palliative management.^15-18 Travel for radiotherapy was much less frequently reported as a barrier among respondents with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with those without onsite radiation departments (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

It is therefore possible that expansion of VHA radiation oncology services, allowing for provision of onsite radiotherapy at more VHA facilities, would reduce travel burden. Increasing travel accommodations for patients and provision of patient lodging on hospital campuses, which is already offered at some VHA medical centers (ie, Fisher House Foundation), could also help attenuate this barrier.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards

Our study demonstrates that centers with onsite radiation departments more frequently hold multidisciplinary tumor boards compared with centers without radiation departments (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01). Multidisciplinary tumor boards allow subspecialties to meet regularly to communicate about patient care and can help mitigate barriers related to communication and education of the referring health care practitioners.

As cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards, health care practitioners have the opportunity to make recommendations and provide education on potential benefits and/or downsides of treatments offered by their respective specialties. Several studies have demonstrated that cases discussed at multidisciplinary tumor boards are more likely to be referred for radiation therapy.^19-21 Furthermore, multidisciplinary tumor boards have been associated with improved treatment outcomes.²²

Conclusions

In this consensus statement the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recommends the optimization of use of radiotherapy within the VHA. Radiation oncology services should be maintained where present in the VHA, with consideration for expansion of services to additional facilities. Telehealth should be used to expedite consults and treatment. Hypofractionation should be used, when appropriate, to ease travel burden. Options for transportation services and onsite housing, or hospitalization, should be understood by practitioners and offered to patients to mitigate barriers related to travel.

Radiation therapy, along with surgery and systemic therapy, is a primary therapeutic modality for cancer management. At least half of cancer patients receive radiation as part of their treatment regimen.¹ Multiple studies demonstrate that radiotherapy is underutilized worldwide.² One reason for underutilization of radiotherapy globally is poor access to this treatment modality. Factors that contribute to poor access include long wait times for consultation, delays in treatment initiation, distance to a treatment facility, and poor coordination of care.

Taskforce Findings

The presence of onsite radiation oncology and its impact on utilization of radiotherapy is poorly studied. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recently conducted a survey to determine the barriers to referral and timeliness of treatment for palliative radiotherapy within the VHA.³ Key findings of this study comparing centers with onsite radiation departments with centers without onsite radiation departments include:

a. Radiation consults are more likely to be completed within 1 week of consult request at centers with onsite radiation therapy (68% vs 31%, respectively; P = .01).

b. Centers with onsite radiation therapy more frequently deliver emergent treatment within 24 hours for patients with spinal cord compression, an emergency condition in which prompt radiation can prevent or minimize long-term neurologic disability (94% vs 70%, respectively; P = .01).

c. Referring practitioners with onsite radiation departments are less likely to report difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy (0% vs 20%, respectively; P = .006).

d. Referring practitioners with onsite radiotherapy report patient travel as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy less frequently (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

e. Practitioners with onsite radiation oncology departments are more likely to have multidisciplinary tumor boards (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01) and are more likely to be influenced by radiation oncology recommendations at tumor boards (69% vs 44%, respectively; P = .02).

Based on the findings of this study, the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce has prepared this consensus statement regarding the importance of onsite radiation oncology departments at VHA medical centers. More information regarding our 5 key findings and their implications for patient care are as follows:

Timeliness of Radiation Oncology Consultation

Delays in radiation oncology consultation, which can also delay treatment initiation, are associated with poor satisfaction among both patients and referring clinicians.⁴ Wait times have been identified as a barrier to utilization of radiotherapy by both patients and clinicians.^5,6 Furthermore, delays in initiation of definitive therapy have been associated with worse outcomes, including worse overall survival.^7,8 Our survey study demonstrates that consults for palliative radiotherapy are occurring in a more timely manner at centers with onsite radiation departments. Radiation oncology consults are more frequently completed within 1 week at centers with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with centers without onsite radiation oncology departments (68% vs 31%, P = .01). This trend would likely be seen for nonpalliative, definitive cases as well. The presence of radiation oncology departments onsite at VHA medical centers is an important component of timely care for veterans to optimize outcomes of cancer treatment.

Timely Delivery of Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies

There are a few scenarios in which emergent radiation treatment, within 24 hours, is indicated. These include malignant spinal cord compression, uncal herniation from brain metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, and tumor hemorrhage.⁹ Studies on management of metastatic spinal cord compression demonstrate that delays in treatment are associated with reduced ambulation¹⁰ as well as loss of sphincter function and incontinence.¹¹

Our study demonstrates that VHA medical centers with onsite radiotherapy more frequently deliver radiotherapy within 24 hours for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. This timely delivery of treatment is critical to optimizing functional status and quality of life in patients requiring treatment for oncologic emergencies. Revisiting treatment pathways for such situations at regular intervals is crucial given that residents and staff may rotate and be unfamiliar with emergency protocols.

Communication With Radiation Oncologists

Several studies have demonstrated that the inability to contact a radiation oncologist and poor communication result in decreased referrals for palliative radiotherapy.^12,13 Our study demonstrates that onsite radiation oncology is associated with improved ability to contact a radiation oncologist. About 20% of clinicians at facilities without onsite radiation oncology reported difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist, compared with 0% at facilities with onsite radiation departments (P = .006).

It is possible that increased radiation oncology presence at VHA medical centers, through attenuation of barriers related to contacting a radiation oncologist and improved communication, would lead to increased use of radiotherapy. Increased communication between referring clinicians and radiation oncologists also can help with education of those clinicians making the referral. Since knowledge gaps have been identified in multiple studies as a barrier to referral for radiotherapy, such communication and increased education on the role of radiotherapy could increase use.^12-14

Patient Travel

Patient ability to travel was the most commonly reported barrier (81%) to referral for palliative radiotherapy in our study. Travel time and transportation difficulties have been established in multiple studies as barriers to radiotherapy for both definitive and palliative management.^15-18 Travel for radiotherapy was much less frequently reported as a barrier among respondents with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with those without onsite radiation departments (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

It is therefore possible that expansion of VHA radiation oncology services, allowing for provision of onsite radiotherapy at more VHA facilities, would reduce travel burden. Increasing travel accommodations for patients and provision of patient lodging on hospital campuses, which is already offered at some VHA medical centers (ie, Fisher House Foundation), could also help attenuate this barrier.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards

Our study demonstrates that centers with onsite radiation departments more frequently hold multidisciplinary tumor boards compared with centers without radiation departments (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01). Multidisciplinary tumor boards allow subspecialties to meet regularly to communicate about patient care and can help mitigate barriers related to communication and education of the referring health care practitioners.

As cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards, health care practitioners have the opportunity to make recommendations and provide education on potential benefits and/or downsides of treatments offered by their respective specialties. Several studies have demonstrated that cases discussed at multidisciplinary tumor boards are more likely to be referred for radiation therapy.^19-21 Furthermore, multidisciplinary tumor boards have been associated with improved treatment outcomes.²²

Conclusions

In this consensus statement the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recommends the optimization of use of radiotherapy within the VHA. Radiation oncology services should be maintained where present in the VHA, with consideration for expansion of services to additional facilities. Telehealth should be used to expedite consults and treatment. Hypofractionation should be used, when appropriate, to ease travel burden. Options for transportation services and onsite housing, or hospitalization, should be understood by practitioners and offered to patients to mitigate barriers related to travel.

Radiation therapy, along with surgery and systemic therapy, is a primary therapeutic modality for cancer management. At least half of cancer patients receive radiation as part of their treatment regimen.¹ Multiple studies demonstrate that radiotherapy is underutilized worldwide.² One reason for underutilization of radiotherapy globally is poor access to this treatment modality. Factors that contribute to poor access include long wait times for consultation, delays in treatment initiation, distance to a treatment facility, and poor coordination of care.

Taskforce Findings

The presence of onsite radiation oncology and its impact on utilization of radiotherapy is poorly studied. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recently conducted a survey to determine the barriers to referral and timeliness of treatment for palliative radiotherapy within the VHA.³ Key findings of this study comparing centers with onsite radiation departments with centers without onsite radiation departments include:

a. Radiation consults are more likely to be completed within 1 week of consult request at centers with onsite radiation therapy (68% vs 31%, respectively; P = .01).

b. Centers with onsite radiation therapy more frequently deliver emergent treatment within 24 hours for patients with spinal cord compression, an emergency condition in which prompt radiation can prevent or minimize long-term neurologic disability (94% vs 70%, respectively; P = .01).

c. Referring practitioners with onsite radiation departments are less likely to report difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy (0% vs 20%, respectively; P = .006).

d. Referring practitioners with onsite radiotherapy report patient travel as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy less frequently (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

e. Practitioners with onsite radiation oncology departments are more likely to have multidisciplinary tumor boards (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01) and are more likely to be influenced by radiation oncology recommendations at tumor boards (69% vs 44%, respectively; P = .02).

Based on the findings of this study, the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce has prepared this consensus statement regarding the importance of onsite radiation oncology departments at VHA medical centers. More information regarding our 5 key findings and their implications for patient care are as follows:

Timeliness of Radiation Oncology Consultation

Delays in radiation oncology consultation, which can also delay treatment initiation, are associated with poor satisfaction among both patients and referring clinicians.⁴ Wait times have been identified as a barrier to utilization of radiotherapy by both patients and clinicians.^5,6 Furthermore, delays in initiation of definitive therapy have been associated with worse outcomes, including worse overall survival.^7,8 Our survey study demonstrates that consults for palliative radiotherapy are occurring in a more timely manner at centers with onsite radiation departments. Radiation oncology consults are more frequently completed within 1 week at centers with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with centers without onsite radiation oncology departments (68% vs 31%, P = .01). This trend would likely be seen for nonpalliative, definitive cases as well. The presence of radiation oncology departments onsite at VHA medical centers is an important component of timely care for veterans to optimize outcomes of cancer treatment.

Timely Delivery of Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies

There are a few scenarios in which emergent radiation treatment, within 24 hours, is indicated. These include malignant spinal cord compression, uncal herniation from brain metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, and tumor hemorrhage.⁹ Studies on management of metastatic spinal cord compression demonstrate that delays in treatment are associated with reduced ambulation¹⁰ as well as loss of sphincter function and incontinence.¹¹

Our study demonstrates that VHA medical centers with onsite radiotherapy more frequently deliver radiotherapy within 24 hours for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. This timely delivery of treatment is critical to optimizing functional status and quality of life in patients requiring treatment for oncologic emergencies. Revisiting treatment pathways for such situations at regular intervals is crucial given that residents and staff may rotate and be unfamiliar with emergency protocols.

Communication With Radiation Oncologists

Several studies have demonstrated that the inability to contact a radiation oncologist and poor communication result in decreased referrals for palliative radiotherapy.^12,13 Our study demonstrates that onsite radiation oncology is associated with improved ability to contact a radiation oncologist. About 20% of clinicians at facilities without onsite radiation oncology reported difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist, compared with 0% at facilities with onsite radiation departments (P = .006).

It is possible that increased radiation oncology presence at VHA medical centers, through attenuation of barriers related to contacting a radiation oncologist and improved communication, would lead to increased use of radiotherapy. Increased communication between referring clinicians and radiation oncologists also can help with education of those clinicians making the referral. Since knowledge gaps have been identified in multiple studies as a barrier to referral for radiotherapy, such communication and increased education on the role of radiotherapy could increase use.^12-14

Patient Travel

Patient ability to travel was the most commonly reported barrier (81%) to referral for palliative radiotherapy in our study. Travel time and transportation difficulties have been established in multiple studies as barriers to radiotherapy for both definitive and palliative management.^15-18 Travel for radiotherapy was much less frequently reported as a barrier among respondents with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with those without onsite radiation departments (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

It is therefore possible that expansion of VHA radiation oncology services, allowing for provision of onsite radiotherapy at more VHA facilities, would reduce travel burden. Increasing travel accommodations for patients and provision of patient lodging on hospital campuses, which is already offered at some VHA medical centers (ie, Fisher House Foundation), could also help attenuate this barrier.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards

Our study demonstrates that centers with onsite radiation departments more frequently hold multidisciplinary tumor boards compared with centers without radiation departments (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01). Multidisciplinary tumor boards allow subspecialties to meet regularly to communicate about patient care and can help mitigate barriers related to communication and education of the referring health care practitioners.

As cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards, health care practitioners have the opportunity to make recommendations and provide education on potential benefits and/or downsides of treatments offered by their respective specialties. Several studies have demonstrated that cases discussed at multidisciplinary tumor boards are more likely to be referred for radiation therapy.^19-21 Furthermore, multidisciplinary tumor boards have been associated with improved treatment outcomes.²²

Conclusions

In this consensus statement the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recommends the optimization of use of radiotherapy within the VHA. Radiation oncology services should be maintained where present in the VHA, with consideration for expansion of services to additional facilities. Telehealth should be used to expedite consults and treatment. Hypofractionation should be used, when appropriate, to ease travel burden. Options for transportation services and onsite housing, or hospitalization, should be understood by practitioners and offered to patients to mitigate barriers related to travel.

Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 1% to 2% of all cancers and slightly more than 17% of hematologic malignancies in the United States.¹ MM is characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of immunoglobulin (Ig)-producing plasma cells with ≥ 10% clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow or biopsy-proven bony or soft tissue plasmacytoma, plus presence of related organ or tissue impairment or presence of a biomarker associated with near-inevitable progression to end-organ damage.²

Background

Up to 97% of patients with MM will have a monoclonal (M) protein produced and secreted by the malignant plasma cells, which can be detected by protein electrophoresis of the serum and an aliquot of urine from a 24-hour collection combined with immunofixation of the serum and urine. The M protein in MM usually consists of IgG 50% of the time and light chains 16% of the time. Patients who lack detectable M protein are considered to have nonsecretory myeloma. MM presents with end-organ damage, which includes hypercalcemia, renal dysfunction, anemia, or lytic bone lesions. Patients with MM frequently present with renal insufficiency due to cast nephropathy or light chain deposition disease.³

MM is thought to evolve from monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance (MGUS), an asymptomatic premalignant stage of clonal plasma cell proliferation with a risk of progression to active myeloma at 1% per year.^4,5 Epidemiologic data suggest that people who develop MM have a genetic predisposition, but risk factors may develop or be acquired, such as age, immunosuppression, and environmental exposures. To better assess what causes transformation from MGUS to MM, it is important to identify agents that may cause this second hit.⁶

In November 1961, President John F. Kennedy authorized the start of Operation Ranch Hand, the US Air Force’s herbicide program during the Vietnam War. Twenty million gallons of various chemicals were sprayed in Vietnam, eastern Laos, and parts of Cambodia to defoliate rural land, depriving guerillas of their support base. Agent Orange (AO) was one of these chemicals; it is a mixed herbicide with traces of dioxin, a compound that has been associated with major health problems among exposed individuals.⁷ Several studies have evaluated exposure to AO and its potential harmful repercussions. Studies have assessed the link between AO and MGUS as well as AO to various leukemias, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.^8,9 Other studies have shown the relationship between AO exposure and worse outcomes in persons with MM.¹⁰ To date, only a single abstract from a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center has investigated the relationships between AO exposure and MGUS, MM, and the rate of transformation. The VA study of patients seen from 2005 to 2015 in Detroit, Michigan, found that AO exposure led to an increase in cumulative incidence rate of MGUS/MM, suggesting possible changes in disease biology and genetics.¹¹

In this study, we aimed to determine the incidence of transformation of MGUS to MM in patients with and without exposure to AO. We then analyzed survival as a function of AO exposure, transformation, and clinical and sociodemographic variables. We also explored the impact of psychosocial variables and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), a standard of treatment for MM.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study assembled electronic health record (EHR) data from the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VA Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System Institutional Review Board granted a waiver of consent for this record review. Eligible patients were Vietnam-era veterans who were in the military during the time that AO was used (1961-1971). Veterans were included if they were being cared for and received a diagnosis for MGUS or MM between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2015 (all prevalent cases fiscal years 2010-2015). Cases were excluded if there was illogical death data or if age, race, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), or prior-year diagnostic data were missing.

Measures

Patients were followed through April 2020. Presence of MGUS was defined by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code 273.1. MM was identified by ICD-9 diagnosis codes 203.00, 203.01, and 203.02. The study index date was the earliest date of diagnosis of MGUS or MM in fiscal years 2010-2015. It was suspected that some patients with MM may have had a history of MGUS prior to this period. Therefore, for patients with MM, historical diagnosis of MGUS was extracted going back through the earliest data in the CDW (October 1999). Patients diagnosed with both MGUS and MM were considered transformation patients.

Other measures included age at index date, sex, race, ethnicity, VA priority status (a value 1 to 8 summarizing why the veteran qualified for VA care, such as military service-connected disability or very low income), and AO exposure authenticated per VA enrollment files and disability records. Service years were separated into 1961 to 1968 and 1969 to 1971 to match a change in the formulation of AO associated with decreased carcinogenic effect. Comorbidity data from the year prior to first MGUS/MM diagnosis in the observation period were extracted. Lifestyle factors associated with development of MGUS/MM were determined using the following codes: obesity per BMI calculation or diagnosis (ICD-9, 278.0), tobacco use per diagnosis (ICD-9, 305.1, V15.82), and survival from MGUS/MM diagnosis index date to date of death from any cause. Comorbidity was assessed using ICD-9 diagnosis codes to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), which includes cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, liver and kidney diseases, cancers, and metastatic solid tumors. Cancers were omitted from our adapted CCI to avoid collinearity in the multivariable models. The theoretical maximum CCI score in this study was 25.^12,13 Additional conditions known to be associated with variation in outcomes among veterans using the VA were indicated, including major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol use disorder (AUD), substance use disorder (SUD), and common chronic disease (hypertension, lipid disorders).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Sample characteristics were represented by frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and SDs (or medians and ranges where appropriate) for continuous variables. A χ² test (or Fisher exact test when cell counts were low) assessed associations in bivariate comparisons. A 2-sample t test (or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate) assessed differences in continuous variables between 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier curves depicted the unadjusted relationship of AO exposure to survival. Cox proportional hazards survival models examined an unadjusted model containing only the AO exposure indicator as a predictor and adjusted models were used for demographic and clinical factors for MGUS and patients with MM separately.

Predictors were age in decades, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, race, nicotine dependence, obesity, overweight, AUD, SUD, major depressive disorder, PTSD, and the adapted CCI. When modeling patients with MM, MGUS was added to the model to identify the transformation group. The interaction of AO with transformation was also analyzed for patients with MM. Results were reported as hazard ratios (HR) with their 95% CI.

Results

We identified 18,215 veterans diagnosed with either MGUS or MM during fiscal years 2010-2015 with 16,366 meeting inclusion criteria. Patients were excluded for missing data on exposure (n = 334), age (n = 12), race (n = 1058), ethnicity (n = 164), diagnosis (n = 47), treatment (n = 56), and BMI (n = 178). All were Vietnam War era veterans; 14 also served in other eras.

The cohort was 98.5% male (Table 1). Twenty-nine percent were Black veterans, 65% were White veterans, and 4% of individuals reported Hispanic ethnicity. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 66.7 (5.9) years (range, 52-96). Most patients were married (58%) or divorced/separated (27%). All were VA priority 1 to 5 (no 6, 7, or 8); 50% were priority 1 with 50% to 100% service-connected disability. Another 29% were eligible for VA care by reason of low income, 17% had 10% to 40% service-connected disability, and 4% were otherwise disabled.

Disscussion

Elucidating the pathophysiology and risk of transformation from MGUS to MM is an ongoing endeavor, even 35 years after the end of US involvement in the Vietnam War. Our study sought to understand a relationship between AO exposure, risk of MGUS transforming to MM, and associated mortality in US Vietnam War veterans. The rate of transformation (MGUS progressing to active MM) is well cited at 1% per year.¹⁵ Here, we found 12% of our cohort had undergone this transformation over 10 years.

Vietnam War era veterans who were exposed to AO during the Operation Ranch Hand period had 2.4 times greater risk of developing MGUS compared with veterans not exposed to AO.⁸ Our study was not designed to look at this association of AO exposure and MGUS/MM as this was a retrospective review to assess the difference in outcomes based on AO exposure. We found that AO exposure is associated with a decrease in mortality in contrast to a prior study showing worse survival with individuals with AO exposure.¹⁰ Another single center study found no association between AO exposure and overall survival, but it did identify an increased risk of progression from MGUS to MM.¹¹ Our study did not show increased risk of transformation but did show positive effect on survival.

Black individuals have twice the risk of developing MM compared with White individuals and are diagnosed at a younger age (66 vs 70 years, respectively).¹⁶ Interestingly, Black race was a protective factor in our study. Given the length of time (35 years) elapsed since the Vietnam War ended, it is likely that most vulnerable Black veterans did not survive until our observation period.

HSCT, as expected, was a protective factor for veterans undergoing this treatment modality, but it is unclear why such a small number (8%) underwent HSCT as this is a standard of care in the management of MM. Obesity was also found to be a protective factor in a prior study, which was also seen in our study cohort.⁸

Limitations

This study was limited by its retrospective review of survivors among the Vietnam-era cohort several decades after the exposure of concern. Clinician notes and full historical data, such as date of onset for any disorder, were unavailable. These data also relied on the practitioners caring for the veterans to make the correct diagnosis with the associated code so that the data could be captured. Neither AO exposure nor diagnoses codes were verified against other sources of data; however, validation studies over the years have supported the accuracy of the diagnosis codes recorded in the VA EHR.

Conclusions

Because AO exposure is a nonmodifiable risk factor, focus should be placed on modifiable risk factors (eg, nicotine dependence, alcohol and substance use disorders, underlying comorbid conditions) as these were associated with worse outcomes. Future studies will look at the correlation of AO exposure, cytogenetics, and clinical outcomes in these veterans to learn how best to identify their disease course and optimize their care in the latter part of their life.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System and Baylor Scott and White Health, both in Temple and Veterans Affairs Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System, Leeds.

Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 1% to 2% of all cancers and slightly more than 17% of hematologic malignancies in the United States.¹ MM is characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of immunoglobulin (Ig)-producing plasma cells with ≥ 10% clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow or biopsy-proven bony or soft tissue plasmacytoma, plus presence of related organ or tissue impairment or presence of a biomarker associated with near-inevitable progression to end-organ damage.²

Background

Up to 97% of patients with MM will have a monoclonal (M) protein produced and secreted by the malignant plasma cells, which can be detected by protein electrophoresis of the serum and an aliquot of urine from a 24-hour collection combined with immunofixation of the serum and urine. The M protein in MM usually consists of IgG 50% of the time and light chains 16% of the time. Patients who lack detectable M protein are considered to have nonsecretory myeloma. MM presents with end-organ damage, which includes hypercalcemia, renal dysfunction, anemia, or lytic bone lesions. Patients with MM frequently present with renal insufficiency due to cast nephropathy or light chain deposition disease.³

MM is thought to evolve from monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance (MGUS), an asymptomatic premalignant stage of clonal plasma cell proliferation with a risk of progression to active myeloma at 1% per year.^4,5 Epidemiologic data suggest that people who develop MM have a genetic predisposition, but risk factors may develop or be acquired, such as age, immunosuppression, and environmental exposures. To better assess what causes transformation from MGUS to MM, it is important to identify agents that may cause this second hit.⁶

In November 1961, President John F. Kennedy authorized the start of Operation Ranch Hand, the US Air Force’s herbicide program during the Vietnam War. Twenty million gallons of various chemicals were sprayed in Vietnam, eastern Laos, and parts of Cambodia to defoliate rural land, depriving guerillas of their support base. Agent Orange (AO) was one of these chemicals; it is a mixed herbicide with traces of dioxin, a compound that has been associated with major health problems among exposed individuals.⁷ Several studies have evaluated exposure to AO and its potential harmful repercussions. Studies have assessed the link between AO and MGUS as well as AO to various leukemias, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.^8,9 Other studies have shown the relationship between AO exposure and worse outcomes in persons with MM.¹⁰ To date, only a single abstract from a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center has investigated the relationships between AO exposure and MGUS, MM, and the rate of transformation. The VA study of patients seen from 2005 to 2015 in Detroit, Michigan, found that AO exposure led to an increase in cumulative incidence rate of MGUS/MM, suggesting possible changes in disease biology and genetics.¹¹

In this study, we aimed to determine the incidence of transformation of MGUS to MM in patients with and without exposure to AO. We then analyzed survival as a function of AO exposure, transformation, and clinical and sociodemographic variables. We also explored the impact of psychosocial variables and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), a standard of treatment for MM.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study assembled electronic health record (EHR) data from the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VA Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System Institutional Review Board granted a waiver of consent for this record review. Eligible patients were Vietnam-era veterans who were in the military during the time that AO was used (1961-1971). Veterans were included if they were being cared for and received a diagnosis for MGUS or MM between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2015 (all prevalent cases fiscal years 2010-2015). Cases were excluded if there was illogical death data or if age, race, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), or prior-year diagnostic data were missing.

Measures

Patients were followed through April 2020. Presence of MGUS was defined by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code 273.1. MM was identified by ICD-9 diagnosis codes 203.00, 203.01, and 203.02. The study index date was the earliest date of diagnosis of MGUS or MM in fiscal years 2010-2015. It was suspected that some patients with MM may have had a history of MGUS prior to this period. Therefore, for patients with MM, historical diagnosis of MGUS was extracted going back through the earliest data in the CDW (October 1999). Patients diagnosed with both MGUS and MM were considered transformation patients.

Other measures included age at index date, sex, race, ethnicity, VA priority status (a value 1 to 8 summarizing why the veteran qualified for VA care, such as military service-connected disability or very low income), and AO exposure authenticated per VA enrollment files and disability records. Service years were separated into 1961 to 1968 and 1969 to 1971 to match a change in the formulation of AO associated with decreased carcinogenic effect. Comorbidity data from the year prior to first MGUS/MM diagnosis in the observation period were extracted. Lifestyle factors associated with development of MGUS/MM were determined using the following codes: obesity per BMI calculation or diagnosis (ICD-9, 278.0), tobacco use per diagnosis (ICD-9, 305.1, V15.82), and survival from MGUS/MM diagnosis index date to date of death from any cause. Comorbidity was assessed using ICD-9 diagnosis codes to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), which includes cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, liver and kidney diseases, cancers, and metastatic solid tumors. Cancers were omitted from our adapted CCI to avoid collinearity in the multivariable models. The theoretical maximum CCI score in this study was 25.^12,13 Additional conditions known to be associated with variation in outcomes among veterans using the VA were indicated, including major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol use disorder (AUD), substance use disorder (SUD), and common chronic disease (hypertension, lipid disorders).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Sample characteristics were represented by frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and SDs (or medians and ranges where appropriate) for continuous variables. A χ² test (or Fisher exact test when cell counts were low) assessed associations in bivariate comparisons. A 2-sample t test (or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate) assessed differences in continuous variables between 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier curves depicted the unadjusted relationship of AO exposure to survival. Cox proportional hazards survival models examined an unadjusted model containing only the AO exposure indicator as a predictor and adjusted models were used for demographic and clinical factors for MGUS and patients with MM separately.

Predictors were age in decades, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, race, nicotine dependence, obesity, overweight, AUD, SUD, major depressive disorder, PTSD, and the adapted CCI. When modeling patients with MM, MGUS was added to the model to identify the transformation group. The interaction of AO with transformation was also analyzed for patients with MM. Results were reported as hazard ratios (HR) with their 95% CI.

Results

We identified 18,215 veterans diagnosed with either MGUS or MM during fiscal years 2010-2015 with 16,366 meeting inclusion criteria. Patients were excluded for missing data on exposure (n = 334), age (n = 12), race (n = 1058), ethnicity (n = 164), diagnosis (n = 47), treatment (n = 56), and BMI (n = 178). All were Vietnam War era veterans; 14 also served in other eras.

The cohort was 98.5% male (Table 1). Twenty-nine percent were Black veterans, 65% were White veterans, and 4% of individuals reported Hispanic ethnicity. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 66.7 (5.9) years (range, 52-96). Most patients were married (58%) or divorced/separated (27%). All were VA priority 1 to 5 (no 6, 7, or 8); 50% were priority 1 with 50% to 100% service-connected disability. Another 29% were eligible for VA care by reason of low income, 17% had 10% to 40% service-connected disability, and 4% were otherwise disabled.

Disscussion

Elucidating the pathophysiology and risk of transformation from MGUS to MM is an ongoing endeavor, even 35 years after the end of US involvement in the Vietnam War. Our study sought to understand a relationship between AO exposure, risk of MGUS transforming to MM, and associated mortality in US Vietnam War veterans. The rate of transformation (MGUS progressing to active MM) is well cited at 1% per year.¹⁵ Here, we found 12% of our cohort had undergone this transformation over 10 years.

Vietnam War era veterans who were exposed to AO during the Operation Ranch Hand period had 2.4 times greater risk of developing MGUS compared with veterans not exposed to AO.⁸ Our study was not designed to look at this association of AO exposure and MGUS/MM as this was a retrospective review to assess the difference in outcomes based on AO exposure. We found that AO exposure is associated with a decrease in mortality in contrast to a prior study showing worse survival with individuals with AO exposure.¹⁰ Another single center study found no association between AO exposure and overall survival, but it did identify an increased risk of progression from MGUS to MM.¹¹ Our study did not show increased risk of transformation but did show positive effect on survival.

Black individuals have twice the risk of developing MM compared with White individuals and are diagnosed at a younger age (66 vs 70 years, respectively).¹⁶ Interestingly, Black race was a protective factor in our study. Given the length of time (35 years) elapsed since the Vietnam War ended, it is likely that most vulnerable Black veterans did not survive until our observation period.

HSCT, as expected, was a protective factor for veterans undergoing this treatment modality, but it is unclear why such a small number (8%) underwent HSCT as this is a standard of care in the management of MM. Obesity was also found to be a protective factor in a prior study, which was also seen in our study cohort.⁸

Limitations

This study was limited by its retrospective review of survivors among the Vietnam-era cohort several decades after the exposure of concern. Clinician notes and full historical data, such as date of onset for any disorder, were unavailable. These data also relied on the practitioners caring for the veterans to make the correct diagnosis with the associated code so that the data could be captured. Neither AO exposure nor diagnoses codes were verified against other sources of data; however, validation studies over the years have supported the accuracy of the diagnosis codes recorded in the VA EHR.

Conclusions

Because AO exposure is a nonmodifiable risk factor, focus should be placed on modifiable risk factors (eg, nicotine dependence, alcohol and substance use disorders, underlying comorbid conditions) as these were associated with worse outcomes. Future studies will look at the correlation of AO exposure, cytogenetics, and clinical outcomes in these veterans to learn how best to identify their disease course and optimize their care in the latter part of their life.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System and Baylor Scott and White Health, both in Temple and Veterans Affairs Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System, Leeds.

Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 1% to 2% of all cancers and slightly more than 17% of hematologic malignancies in the United States.¹ MM is characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of immunoglobulin (Ig)-producing plasma cells with ≥ 10% clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow or biopsy-proven bony or soft tissue plasmacytoma, plus presence of related organ or tissue impairment or presence of a biomarker associated with near-inevitable progression to end-organ damage.²

Background

Up to 97% of patients with MM will have a monoclonal (M) protein produced and secreted by the malignant plasma cells, which can be detected by protein electrophoresis of the serum and an aliquot of urine from a 24-hour collection combined with immunofixation of the serum and urine. The M protein in MM usually consists of IgG 50% of the time and light chains 16% of the time. Patients who lack detectable M protein are considered to have nonsecretory myeloma. MM presents with end-organ damage, which includes hypercalcemia, renal dysfunction, anemia, or lytic bone lesions. Patients with MM frequently present with renal insufficiency due to cast nephropathy or light chain deposition disease.³

MM is thought to evolve from monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance (MGUS), an asymptomatic premalignant stage of clonal plasma cell proliferation with a risk of progression to active myeloma at 1% per year.^4,5 Epidemiologic data suggest that people who develop MM have a genetic predisposition, but risk factors may develop or be acquired, such as age, immunosuppression, and environmental exposures. To better assess what causes transformation from MGUS to MM, it is important to identify agents that may cause this second hit.⁶

In November 1961, President John F. Kennedy authorized the start of Operation Ranch Hand, the US Air Force’s herbicide program during the Vietnam War. Twenty million gallons of various chemicals were sprayed in Vietnam, eastern Laos, and parts of Cambodia to defoliate rural land, depriving guerillas of their support base. Agent Orange (AO) was one of these chemicals; it is a mixed herbicide with traces of dioxin, a compound that has been associated with major health problems among exposed individuals.⁷ Several studies have evaluated exposure to AO and its potential harmful repercussions. Studies have assessed the link between AO and MGUS as well as AO to various leukemias, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.^8,9 Other studies have shown the relationship between AO exposure and worse outcomes in persons with MM.¹⁰ To date, only a single abstract from a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center has investigated the relationships between AO exposure and MGUS, MM, and the rate of transformation. The VA study of patients seen from 2005 to 2015 in Detroit, Michigan, found that AO exposure led to an increase in cumulative incidence rate of MGUS/MM, suggesting possible changes in disease biology and genetics.¹¹

In this study, we aimed to determine the incidence of transformation of MGUS to MM in patients with and without exposure to AO. We then analyzed survival as a function of AO exposure, transformation, and clinical and sociodemographic variables. We also explored the impact of psychosocial variables and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), a standard of treatment for MM.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study assembled electronic health record (EHR) data from the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VA Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System Institutional Review Board granted a waiver of consent for this record review. Eligible patients were Vietnam-era veterans who were in the military during the time that AO was used (1961-1971). Veterans were included if they were being cared for and received a diagnosis for MGUS or MM between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2015 (all prevalent cases fiscal years 2010-2015). Cases were excluded if there was illogical death data or if age, race, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), or prior-year diagnostic data were missing.

Measures

Patients were followed through April 2020. Presence of MGUS was defined by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code 273.1. MM was identified by ICD-9 diagnosis codes 203.00, 203.01, and 203.02. The study index date was the earliest date of diagnosis of MGUS or MM in fiscal years 2010-2015. It was suspected that some patients with MM may have had a history of MGUS prior to this period. Therefore, for patients with MM, historical diagnosis of MGUS was extracted going back through the earliest data in the CDW (October 1999). Patients diagnosed with both MGUS and MM were considered transformation patients.

Other measures included age at index date, sex, race, ethnicity, VA priority status (a value 1 to 8 summarizing why the veteran qualified for VA care, such as military service-connected disability or very low income), and AO exposure authenticated per VA enrollment files and disability records. Service years were separated into 1961 to 1968 and 1969 to 1971 to match a change in the formulation of AO associated with decreased carcinogenic effect. Comorbidity data from the year prior to first MGUS/MM diagnosis in the observation period were extracted. Lifestyle factors associated with development of MGUS/MM were determined using the following codes: obesity per BMI calculation or diagnosis (ICD-9, 278.0), tobacco use per diagnosis (ICD-9, 305.1, V15.82), and survival from MGUS/MM diagnosis index date to date of death from any cause. Comorbidity was assessed using ICD-9 diagnosis codes to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), which includes cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, liver and kidney diseases, cancers, and metastatic solid tumors. Cancers were omitted from our adapted CCI to avoid collinearity in the multivariable models. The theoretical maximum CCI score in this study was 25.^12,13 Additional conditions known to be associated with variation in outcomes among veterans using the VA were indicated, including major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol use disorder (AUD), substance use disorder (SUD), and common chronic disease (hypertension, lipid disorders).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Sample characteristics were represented by frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and SDs (or medians and ranges where appropriate) for continuous variables. A χ² test (or Fisher exact test when cell counts were low) assessed associations in bivariate comparisons. A 2-sample t test (or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate) assessed differences in continuous variables between 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier curves depicted the unadjusted relationship of AO exposure to survival. Cox proportional hazards survival models examined an unadjusted model containing only the AO exposure indicator as a predictor and adjusted models were used for demographic and clinical factors for MGUS and patients with MM separately.

Predictors were age in decades, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, race, nicotine dependence, obesity, overweight, AUD, SUD, major depressive disorder, PTSD, and the adapted CCI. When modeling patients with MM, MGUS was added to the model to identify the transformation group. The interaction of AO with transformation was also analyzed for patients with MM. Results were reported as hazard ratios (HR) with their 95% CI.

Results

We identified 18,215 veterans diagnosed with either MGUS or MM during fiscal years 2010-2015 with 16,366 meeting inclusion criteria. Patients were excluded for missing data on exposure (n = 334), age (n = 12), race (n = 1058), ethnicity (n = 164), diagnosis (n = 47), treatment (n = 56), and BMI (n = 178). All were Vietnam War era veterans; 14 also served in other eras.

The cohort was 98.5% male (Table 1). Twenty-nine percent were Black veterans, 65% were White veterans, and 4% of individuals reported Hispanic ethnicity. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 66.7 (5.9) years (range, 52-96). Most patients were married (58%) or divorced/separated (27%). All were VA priority 1 to 5 (no 6, 7, or 8); 50% were priority 1 with 50% to 100% service-connected disability. Another 29% were eligible for VA care by reason of low income, 17% had 10% to 40% service-connected disability, and 4% were otherwise disabled.

Disscussion

Elucidating the pathophysiology and risk of transformation from MGUS to MM is an ongoing endeavor, even 35 years after the end of US involvement in the Vietnam War. Our study sought to understand a relationship between AO exposure, risk of MGUS transforming to MM, and associated mortality in US Vietnam War veterans. The rate of transformation (MGUS progressing to active MM) is well cited at 1% per year.¹⁵ Here, we found 12% of our cohort had undergone this transformation over 10 years.

Vietnam War era veterans who were exposed to AO during the Operation Ranch Hand period had 2.4 times greater risk of developing MGUS compared with veterans not exposed to AO.⁸ Our study was not designed to look at this association of AO exposure and MGUS/MM as this was a retrospective review to assess the difference in outcomes based on AO exposure. We found that AO exposure is associated with a decrease in mortality in contrast to a prior study showing worse survival with individuals with AO exposure.¹⁰ Another single center study found no association between AO exposure and overall survival, but it did identify an increased risk of progression from MGUS to MM.¹¹ Our study did not show increased risk of transformation but did show positive effect on survival.

Black individuals have twice the risk of developing MM compared with White individuals and are diagnosed at a younger age (66 vs 70 years, respectively).¹⁶ Interestingly, Black race was a protective factor in our study. Given the length of time (35 years) elapsed since the Vietnam War ended, it is likely that most vulnerable Black veterans did not survive until our observation period.

HSCT, as expected, was a protective factor for veterans undergoing this treatment modality, but it is unclear why such a small number (8%) underwent HSCT as this is a standard of care in the management of MM. Obesity was also found to be a protective factor in a prior study, which was also seen in our study cohort.⁸

Limitations

This study was limited by its retrospective review of survivors among the Vietnam-era cohort several decades after the exposure of concern. Clinician notes and full historical data, such as date of onset for any disorder, were unavailable. These data also relied on the practitioners caring for the veterans to make the correct diagnosis with the associated code so that the data could be captured. Neither AO exposure nor diagnoses codes were verified against other sources of data; however, validation studies over the years have supported the accuracy of the diagnosis codes recorded in the VA EHR.

Conclusions

Because AO exposure is a nonmodifiable risk factor, focus should be placed on modifiable risk factors (eg, nicotine dependence, alcohol and substance use disorders, underlying comorbid conditions) as these were associated with worse outcomes. Future studies will look at the correlation of AO exposure, cytogenetics, and clinical outcomes in these veterans to learn how best to identify their disease course and optimize their care in the latter part of their life.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System and Baylor Scott and White Health, both in Temple and Veterans Affairs Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System, Leeds.

People with elevated levels of protein prostasin seem to have a higher risk of developing diabetes and dying from cancer, according to a large, prospective, population-based study. The finding may provide new insights into why people with diabetes have an increased risk of cancer.

The study claims to be the first to investigate the link between plasma prostasin levels and cancer mortality, the study authors wrote in Diabetologia. The study analyzed plasma prostasin samples from 4,297 older adults (average age, 57.5 years) from the Malmö (Sweden) Diet and Cancer Study Cardiovascular Cohort.

“This study from the general population shows that prostasin, a protein that could be measured in blood, is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes,” senior author Gunnar Engström, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Lund University in Malmö, Sweden, said in a comment. “Furthermore, it was associated with increased risk of death from cancer, especially in individuals with elevated glucose levels in the prediabetic range.

“The relationship between diabetes and cancer is poorly understood,” Dr. Engström said. “To our knowledge, this is the first big population study of prostasin and risk of diabetes.”

He noted previous studies have found a relationship between prostasin and cancer outcomes. “Prostasin could be a possible shared link between  the two diseases and the results could help us understand why individuals with diabetes have increased risk of cancer.”

Patients in the study were assigned to quartiles based on prostasin levels. Those in the highest quartile had almost twice the risk of prevalent diabetes than did those in the lowest quartile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.76; P < .0001).

During the follow-up periods of 21.9 years for diabetes and 23.5 years for cancer, on average, 702 participants developed diabetes and 651 died from cancer. Again, the analysis found a significantly higher adjusted hazard ratio for participants in the fourth quartile: about 75% higher for diabetes (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.41-2.19; P < .0001), and, after multivariable analysis, about 40% higher for death from cancer (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14-1.8; P = .0008).
 

Potential diabetes-cancer ‘interaction’

The study also identified what it called “a significant interaction” between prostasin and fasting blood glucose for cancer mortality risk (P = .022). In patients with impaired fasting blood glucose levels at baseline, the risk for cancer mortality was about 50% greater with each standard deviation increase in prostasin (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.07-2.16; P = .019). Those with normal fasting blood glucose at baseline had a significantly lower risk with each SD increase in prostasin (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; P = .025).

Further research is needed to validate the potential of prostasin as a biomarker for diabetes and cancer risks, Dr. Engström said. “The results need to be replicated in other studies. A study of cancer mortality in a big cohort of diabetes patients would be of great interest. We also need to examine whether prostasin is causally related to cancer and/or diabetes, or whether prostasin could act as a valuable risk marker in clinical settings. If causal, there could a possible molecular target for treatment.”

He added: “Biomarkers of diabetes and cancer are of great interest in the era of personalized medicine, both for disease prevention and for treatment of those with established disease.”

Li-Mei Chen, MD, PhD, a research associate professor at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, has studied the role of prostasin in epidemiology. She noted that one of the challenges of using prostasin in clinical or research settings is the lack of a standardized assay, which the Malmö study acknowledged. Dr. Engström and colleagues wrote that “prostasin levels were measured in arbitrary units (NPX values), and thus could not be compared directly with absolute values.”

Dr. Chen pointed out that the study reported a lower range of 0.24 pg/mL and an upper range of 7,800 pg/mL.

This means that, “in different groups that measure prostasin, the absolute quantity could have a difference in the thousands or tens of thousands,” she said. “That makes the judgment difficult of whether for this person you have a high level of prostasin in the blood and the other one you don’t if the difference is over a thousandfold.”

The Malmö study used the Proseek Multiplex Oncology I panel to determine plasma prostasin concentration, but Dr. Chen noted that she couldn’t find any data validating the panel for measuring prostasin. “It’s really hard for me to say whether this is of value or not because if the method that generated the data is not verified by another method, you don’t really know what you’re measuring.

“If the data are questionable, it’s really hard to say whether it means whether it’s a marker for cancer or diabetes,” Dr. Chen added. “That’s the biggest question I have, but actually the authors realize that.”

Dr. Engström confirmed that, “if prostasin is used to identify patients with increased risk of diabetes and cancer mortality, we also need to develop standardized assays for clinical use.”

Dr. Engström and coauthors had no disclosures. The study received funding from the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province. The Malmö Diet and Cancer study received grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Medical Research Council, AFA Insurance, the Albert Påhlsson and Gunnar Nilsson Foundations, Malmö City Council, and Lund University. Dr. Chen had no relevant disclosures.
 

People with elevated levels of protein prostasin seem to have a higher risk of developing diabetes and dying from cancer, according to a large, prospective, population-based study. The finding may provide new insights into why people with diabetes have an increased risk of cancer.

The study claims to be the first to investigate the link between plasma prostasin levels and cancer mortality, the study authors wrote in Diabetologia. The study analyzed plasma prostasin samples from 4,297 older adults (average age, 57.5 years) from the Malmö (Sweden) Diet and Cancer Study Cardiovascular Cohort.

“This study from the general population shows that prostasin, a protein that could be measured in blood, is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes,” senior author Gunnar Engström, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Lund University in Malmö, Sweden, said in a comment. “Furthermore, it was associated with increased risk of death from cancer, especially in individuals with elevated glucose levels in the prediabetic range.

“The relationship between diabetes and cancer is poorly understood,” Dr. Engström said. “To our knowledge, this is the first big population study of prostasin and risk of diabetes.”

He noted previous studies have found a relationship between prostasin and cancer outcomes. “Prostasin could be a possible shared link between  the two diseases and the results could help us understand why individuals with diabetes have increased risk of cancer.”

Patients in the study were assigned to quartiles based on prostasin levels. Those in the highest quartile had almost twice the risk of prevalent diabetes than did those in the lowest quartile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.76; P < .0001).

During the follow-up periods of 21.9 years for diabetes and 23.5 years for cancer, on average, 702 participants developed diabetes and 651 died from cancer. Again, the analysis found a significantly higher adjusted hazard ratio for participants in the fourth quartile: about 75% higher for diabetes (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.41-2.19; P < .0001), and, after multivariable analysis, about 40% higher for death from cancer (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14-1.8; P = .0008).
 

Potential diabetes-cancer ‘interaction’

The study also identified what it called “a significant interaction” between prostasin and fasting blood glucose for cancer mortality risk (P = .022). In patients with impaired fasting blood glucose levels at baseline, the risk for cancer mortality was about 50% greater with each standard deviation increase in prostasin (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.07-2.16; P = .019). Those with normal fasting blood glucose at baseline had a significantly lower risk with each SD increase in prostasin (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; P = .025).

Further research is needed to validate the potential of prostasin as a biomarker for diabetes and cancer risks, Dr. Engström said. “The results need to be replicated in other studies. A study of cancer mortality in a big cohort of diabetes patients would be of great interest. We also need to examine whether prostasin is causally related to cancer and/or diabetes, or whether prostasin could act as a valuable risk marker in clinical settings. If causal, there could a possible molecular target for treatment.”

He added: “Biomarkers of diabetes and cancer are of great interest in the era of personalized medicine, both for disease prevention and for treatment of those with established disease.”

Li-Mei Chen, MD, PhD, a research associate professor at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, has studied the role of prostasin in epidemiology. She noted that one of the challenges of using prostasin in clinical or research settings is the lack of a standardized assay, which the Malmö study acknowledged. Dr. Engström and colleagues wrote that “prostasin levels were measured in arbitrary units (NPX values), and thus could not be compared directly with absolute values.”

Dr. Chen pointed out that the study reported a lower range of 0.24 pg/mL and an upper range of 7,800 pg/mL.

This means that, “in different groups that measure prostasin, the absolute quantity could have a difference in the thousands or tens of thousands,” she said. “That makes the judgment difficult of whether for this person you have a high level of prostasin in the blood and the other one you don’t if the difference is over a thousandfold.”

The Malmö study used the Proseek Multiplex Oncology I panel to determine plasma prostasin concentration, but Dr. Chen noted that she couldn’t find any data validating the panel for measuring prostasin. “It’s really hard for me to say whether this is of value or not because if the method that generated the data is not verified by another method, you don’t really know what you’re measuring.

“If the data are questionable, it’s really hard to say whether it means whether it’s a marker for cancer or diabetes,” Dr. Chen added. “That’s the biggest question I have, but actually the authors realize that.”

Dr. Engström confirmed that, “if prostasin is used to identify patients with increased risk of diabetes and cancer mortality, we also need to develop standardized assays for clinical use.”

Dr. Engström and coauthors had no disclosures. The study received funding from the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province. The Malmö Diet and Cancer study received grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Medical Research Council, AFA Insurance, the Albert Påhlsson and Gunnar Nilsson Foundations, Malmö City Council, and Lund University. Dr. Chen had no relevant disclosures.
 

People with elevated levels of protein prostasin seem to have a higher risk of developing diabetes and dying from cancer, according to a large, prospective, population-based study. The finding may provide new insights into why people with diabetes have an increased risk of cancer.

The study claims to be the first to investigate the link between plasma prostasin levels and cancer mortality, the study authors wrote in Diabetologia. The study analyzed plasma prostasin samples from 4,297 older adults (average age, 57.5 years) from the Malmö (Sweden) Diet and Cancer Study Cardiovascular Cohort.

“This study from the general population shows that prostasin, a protein that could be measured in blood, is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes,” senior author Gunnar Engström, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Lund University in Malmö, Sweden, said in a comment. “Furthermore, it was associated with increased risk of death from cancer, especially in individuals with elevated glucose levels in the prediabetic range.

“The relationship between diabetes and cancer is poorly understood,” Dr. Engström said. “To our knowledge, this is the first big population study of prostasin and risk of diabetes.”

He noted previous studies have found a relationship between prostasin and cancer outcomes. “Prostasin could be a possible shared link between  the two diseases and the results could help us understand why individuals with diabetes have increased risk of cancer.”

Patients in the study were assigned to quartiles based on prostasin levels. Those in the highest quartile had almost twice the risk of prevalent diabetes than did those in the lowest quartile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.76; P < .0001).

During the follow-up periods of 21.9 years for diabetes and 23.5 years for cancer, on average, 702 participants developed diabetes and 651 died from cancer. Again, the analysis found a significantly higher adjusted hazard ratio for participants in the fourth quartile: about 75% higher for diabetes (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.41-2.19; P < .0001), and, after multivariable analysis, about 40% higher for death from cancer (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14-1.8; P = .0008).
 

Potential diabetes-cancer ‘interaction’

The study also identified what it called “a significant interaction” between prostasin and fasting blood glucose for cancer mortality risk (P = .022). In patients with impaired fasting blood glucose levels at baseline, the risk for cancer mortality was about 50% greater with each standard deviation increase in prostasin (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.07-2.16; P = .019). Those with normal fasting blood glucose at baseline had a significantly lower risk with each SD increase in prostasin (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; P = .025).

Further research is needed to validate the potential of prostasin as a biomarker for diabetes and cancer risks, Dr. Engström said. “The results need to be replicated in other studies. A study of cancer mortality in a big cohort of diabetes patients would be of great interest. We also need to examine whether prostasin is causally related to cancer and/or diabetes, or whether prostasin could act as a valuable risk marker in clinical settings. If causal, there could a possible molecular target for treatment.”

He added: “Biomarkers of diabetes and cancer are of great interest in the era of personalized medicine, both for disease prevention and for treatment of those with established disease.”

Li-Mei Chen, MD, PhD, a research associate professor at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, has studied the role of prostasin in epidemiology. She noted that one of the challenges of using prostasin in clinical or research settings is the lack of a standardized assay, which the Malmö study acknowledged. Dr. Engström and colleagues wrote that “prostasin levels were measured in arbitrary units (NPX values), and thus could not be compared directly with absolute values.”

Dr. Chen pointed out that the study reported a lower range of 0.24 pg/mL and an upper range of 7,800 pg/mL.

This means that, “in different groups that measure prostasin, the absolute quantity could have a difference in the thousands or tens of thousands,” she said. “That makes the judgment difficult of whether for this person you have a high level of prostasin in the blood and the other one you don’t if the difference is over a thousandfold.”

The Malmö study used the Proseek Multiplex Oncology I panel to determine plasma prostasin concentration, but Dr. Chen noted that she couldn’t find any data validating the panel for measuring prostasin. “It’s really hard for me to say whether this is of value or not because if the method that generated the data is not verified by another method, you don’t really know what you’re measuring.

“If the data are questionable, it’s really hard to say whether it means whether it’s a marker for cancer or diabetes,” Dr. Chen added. “That’s the biggest question I have, but actually the authors realize that.”

Dr. Engström confirmed that, “if prostasin is used to identify patients with increased risk of diabetes and cancer mortality, we also need to develop standardized assays for clinical use.”

Dr. Engström and coauthors had no disclosures. The study received funding from the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province. The Malmö Diet and Cancer study received grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Medical Research Council, AFA Insurance, the Albert Påhlsson and Gunnar Nilsson Foundations, Malmö City Council, and Lund University. Dr. Chen had no relevant disclosures.
 

A simple blood test that looks for a combination of specific RNA snippets may become a novel way to screen for early-onset colorectal cancer, suggests a new study published online in Gastroenterology.

Researchers identified four microRNAs that together comprise a signature biomarker that can be used to detect and diagnose the presence of colorectal cancer from a liquid biopsy in a younger population.

MicroRNAs, or miRNAs, are small RNA molecules that do not encode proteins but are used instead to regulate gene expression. The study authors developed and validated a panel that detects four miRNAs occurring at higher levels in plasma samples from patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, with high sensitivity and specificity.

“The point would be to use this test as a routine part of annual healthcare, or for people in high-risk families every 6 months,” study senior author Ajay Goel, PhD, MS, chair of the department of molecular diagnostics and experimental therapeutics at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

“It’s affordable, it can be done easily from a small tube of blood, and as long as that test stays negative, you’re good,” Dr. Goel said, because even if patients miss a test, the next one, whether it’s 6 months or a year later, will catch any potential cancer.

“Colon cancer is not going to kill somebody overnight, so this should be used as a precursor to colonoscopy. As long as that test is negative, you can postpone a colonoscopy,” he said.

Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview that the findings are exciting.

“It would be really value-added to have a blood-based screening test,” Dr. Chan said, adding that researchers have pursued multiple different avenues in pursuit of one. “It’s very nice to see that area progress and to actually have some evidence that microRNAs could be a potential biomarker for colorectal cancer.”
 

Screening now insufficient for early-onset disease

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently lowered the recommended age to 45 years to begin screening for colorectal cancer. Part of the rationale for the change came from the rising rates of early-onset colorectal cancer, a distinct clinical and molecular entity that tends to have poorer survival than late-onset disease, the authors noted.

Early-onset disease, occurring primarily in people under 50 without a family or genetic history of colorectal cancer, now makes up about 10%-15% of all new cases and continues to rise, they write.

“Early-onset colorectal cancer patients are more likely to exhibit an advanced stage tumor at initial presentation, distal tumor localization, signet ring histology, and a disease presentation with concurrent metastasis,” the authors wrote. “This raises the logistical clinical concern that, since the tumors in early-onset colorectal cancer patients are often more aggressive than those with late-onset colorectal cancer, a delayed diagnosis could have a significant adverse impact and can lead to early death.”

Yet current screening strategies are insufficient for detecting enough early-onset cases, the authors assert.

Colonoscopies are invasive, carry a risk for complications, and are cost- and time-prohibitive for people at average risk. Meanwhile, existing fecal and blood tests “lack adequate diagnostic performance for the early detection of colorectal cancer, especially early-onset colorectal cancer, as these assays have yet to be explored or developed in this population,” they wrote.

The ideal “diagnostic modality should preferably be acceptable to healthy individuals, inexpensive, rapid, and preferably noninvasive,” they note.
 

Finding and validating miRNA

The researchers therefore turned to the concept of a liquid biopsy, focusing on identifying miRNAs associated with colorectal cancer, because their expression tends to be stable in tissues, blood, stool, and other body fluids.

They first analyzed an miRNA expression profiling dataset from 1,061 individuals to look for miRNAs whose expression was higher in colorectal cancer patients. The dataset included 42 patients with stage 1-2 early-onset colorectal cancer, 370 patients with stage 1-2 late-onset colorectal cancer, 62 patients younger than 50 years without cancer, and 587 patients aged 50 years or older without cancer.

The researchers found 28 miRNAs that were significantly unregulated in early-onset colorectal cancer tissue samples, compared with cancer-free samples and 11 miRNAs unregulated specifically in only the early-onset colorectal cancer samples. Four of these 11 miRNAs were adequately distinct from one another and were detectable in the plasma samples that the researchers would use to train and validate them as a combination biomarker.

The researchers used 117 plasma samples from Japan, including 72 from people with early-onset colorectal cancer and 45 from healthy donors, to develop and train an assay detecting the four miRNAs. They then validated the assay using 142 plasma samples from Spain, including 77 with early-onset colorectal cancer and 65 healthy donors.

In the Japan cohort, the four-miRNA assay had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 80%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 88% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 84%. In the Spain cohort used for validation, the assay performed with a sensitivity of 82%, a specificity of 86%, a PPV of 88%, and an NPV of 80%.

“Taken together, the genome-wide transcriptomic profiling approach was indeed robust, as it identified the biomarkers that were successfully trained and validated in plasma specimens from independent cohorts of patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, hence highlighting their translational potential in the clinic for the detection of this malignancy in early stages,” the authors wrote.

By disease stage, the four-miRNA panel identified both early-stage (stage 1-2; sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%) and late-stage (stage 3-4; sensitivity, 79%; specificity, 86%) early-onset colorectal cancer in the validation cohort.
 

Clinical benefit of blood test

The researchers also assessed the benefit-harm trade-off of this liquid biopsy assay compared with other screening modalities, taking into consideration the risk for false positives and false negatives.

A decision curve analysis “revealed that the miRNA panel achieved a higher net benefit regardless of threshold probability in comparison to intervention for all patients or none of the patients,” the researchers reported. “These findings suggest that this miRNA panel might offer more clinical benefit with regards to the avoidance of physical harm and misdiagnosis.”

They also found that expression levels of these four miRNAs significantly decreased after surgical removal of the colorectal cancer, strongly suggesting that the miRNAs do originate with the tumor.

“To have a relatively inexpensive and noninvasive means of screening a younger population is a very important unmet need,” said Dr. Chan.

It’s not feasible to recommend colonoscopies in people younger than 45 years because of resource constraints, he said, so “this is a wonderful new development to actually have the possibility of a blood-based screening test for younger individuals, especially given that rising incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

Dr. Goel pointed out that only half of those recommended to get screened for colorectal cancer actually undergo screening, and a large reason for that is the desire to avoid colonoscopy, a concern echoed in the findings of a recent study by Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, and colleagues.

Dr. Goel expects that this strategy would increase compliance with screening because it’s less invasive and more affordable, particularly for younger patients. He estimates that a commercial assay using this panel, if approved by the Food and Drug Administration, should cost less than $100.

Dr. Almario, an assistant professor of medicine at the Cedars-Sinai Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Los Angeles, agreed that an FDA-approved blood-based screening test would be a “game-changer,” as long as it’s accurate and effective.

Though Dr. Almario did not review the data in Goel’s study, he said in an interview that a blood test for colorectal cancer screening would be “the holy grail, so to speak, in terms of really moving the needle on screening uptake.”
 

Next steps

Dr. Chan noted that one caveat to consider with this study is that it was done in a relatively small population of individuals, even though the test was validated in a second set of plasma samples.

“Additional validation needs to be done in larger numbers of patients to really understand the performance characteristics because it is possible that some of these signatures may, when they’re using a broader group of individuals, not perform as well,” Dr. Chan said.

Dr. Goel said he is working with several companies right now to develop and further test a commercial product. He anticipates it may be shelf-ready in 2-5 years.

“The take-home message is that clinicians need to be more cognizant of the fact that incidence of this disease is rising, and we need to do something about it,” Dr. Goel said, particularly for those younger than 45 years who currently don’t have a screening option.

“Now we have at least a sliver of hope for those who might be suffering from this disease, for those for whom we have zero screening or diagnostic tests,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Fundación MAPFRE Guanarteme. Dr. Goel, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Almario reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A simple blood test that looks for a combination of specific RNA snippets may become a novel way to screen for early-onset colorectal cancer, suggests a new study published online in Gastroenterology.

Researchers identified four microRNAs that together comprise a signature biomarker that can be used to detect and diagnose the presence of colorectal cancer from a liquid biopsy in a younger population.

MicroRNAs, or miRNAs, are small RNA molecules that do not encode proteins but are used instead to regulate gene expression. The study authors developed and validated a panel that detects four miRNAs occurring at higher levels in plasma samples from patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, with high sensitivity and specificity.

“The point would be to use this test as a routine part of annual healthcare, or for people in high-risk families every 6 months,” study senior author Ajay Goel, PhD, MS, chair of the department of molecular diagnostics and experimental therapeutics at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

“It’s affordable, it can be done easily from a small tube of blood, and as long as that test stays negative, you’re good,” Dr. Goel said, because even if patients miss a test, the next one, whether it’s 6 months or a year later, will catch any potential cancer.

“Colon cancer is not going to kill somebody overnight, so this should be used as a precursor to colonoscopy. As long as that test is negative, you can postpone a colonoscopy,” he said.

Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview that the findings are exciting.

“It would be really value-added to have a blood-based screening test,” Dr. Chan said, adding that researchers have pursued multiple different avenues in pursuit of one. “It’s very nice to see that area progress and to actually have some evidence that microRNAs could be a potential biomarker for colorectal cancer.”
 

Screening now insufficient for early-onset disease

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently lowered the recommended age to 45 years to begin screening for colorectal cancer. Part of the rationale for the change came from the rising rates of early-onset colorectal cancer, a distinct clinical and molecular entity that tends to have poorer survival than late-onset disease, the authors noted.

Early-onset disease, occurring primarily in people under 50 without a family or genetic history of colorectal cancer, now makes up about 10%-15% of all new cases and continues to rise, they write.

“Early-onset colorectal cancer patients are more likely to exhibit an advanced stage tumor at initial presentation, distal tumor localization, signet ring histology, and a disease presentation with concurrent metastasis,” the authors wrote. “This raises the logistical clinical concern that, since the tumors in early-onset colorectal cancer patients are often more aggressive than those with late-onset colorectal cancer, a delayed diagnosis could have a significant adverse impact and can lead to early death.”

Yet current screening strategies are insufficient for detecting enough early-onset cases, the authors assert.

Colonoscopies are invasive, carry a risk for complications, and are cost- and time-prohibitive for people at average risk. Meanwhile, existing fecal and blood tests “lack adequate diagnostic performance for the early detection of colorectal cancer, especially early-onset colorectal cancer, as these assays have yet to be explored or developed in this population,” they wrote.

The ideal “diagnostic modality should preferably be acceptable to healthy individuals, inexpensive, rapid, and preferably noninvasive,” they note.
 

Finding and validating miRNA

The researchers therefore turned to the concept of a liquid biopsy, focusing on identifying miRNAs associated with colorectal cancer, because their expression tends to be stable in tissues, blood, stool, and other body fluids.

They first analyzed an miRNA expression profiling dataset from 1,061 individuals to look for miRNAs whose expression was higher in colorectal cancer patients. The dataset included 42 patients with stage 1-2 early-onset colorectal cancer, 370 patients with stage 1-2 late-onset colorectal cancer, 62 patients younger than 50 years without cancer, and 587 patients aged 50 years or older without cancer.

The researchers found 28 miRNAs that were significantly unregulated in early-onset colorectal cancer tissue samples, compared with cancer-free samples and 11 miRNAs unregulated specifically in only the early-onset colorectal cancer samples. Four of these 11 miRNAs were adequately distinct from one another and were detectable in the plasma samples that the researchers would use to train and validate them as a combination biomarker.

The researchers used 117 plasma samples from Japan, including 72 from people with early-onset colorectal cancer and 45 from healthy donors, to develop and train an assay detecting the four miRNAs. They then validated the assay using 142 plasma samples from Spain, including 77 with early-onset colorectal cancer and 65 healthy donors.

In the Japan cohort, the four-miRNA assay had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 80%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 88% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 84%. In the Spain cohort used for validation, the assay performed with a sensitivity of 82%, a specificity of 86%, a PPV of 88%, and an NPV of 80%.

“Taken together, the genome-wide transcriptomic profiling approach was indeed robust, as it identified the biomarkers that were successfully trained and validated in plasma specimens from independent cohorts of patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, hence highlighting their translational potential in the clinic for the detection of this malignancy in early stages,” the authors wrote.

By disease stage, the four-miRNA panel identified both early-stage (stage 1-2; sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%) and late-stage (stage 3-4; sensitivity, 79%; specificity, 86%) early-onset colorectal cancer in the validation cohort.
 

Clinical benefit of blood test

The researchers also assessed the benefit-harm trade-off of this liquid biopsy assay compared with other screening modalities, taking into consideration the risk for false positives and false negatives.

A decision curve analysis “revealed that the miRNA panel achieved a higher net benefit regardless of threshold probability in comparison to intervention for all patients or none of the patients,” the researchers reported. “These findings suggest that this miRNA panel might offer more clinical benefit with regards to the avoidance of physical harm and misdiagnosis.”

They also found that expression levels of these four miRNAs significantly decreased after surgical removal of the colorectal cancer, strongly suggesting that the miRNAs do originate with the tumor.

“To have a relatively inexpensive and noninvasive means of screening a younger population is a very important unmet need,” said Dr. Chan.

It’s not feasible to recommend colonoscopies in people younger than 45 years because of resource constraints, he said, so “this is a wonderful new development to actually have the possibility of a blood-based screening test for younger individuals, especially given that rising incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

Dr. Goel pointed out that only half of those recommended to get screened for colorectal cancer actually undergo screening, and a large reason for that is the desire to avoid colonoscopy, a concern echoed in the findings of a recent study by Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, and colleagues.

Dr. Goel expects that this strategy would increase compliance with screening because it’s less invasive and more affordable, particularly for younger patients. He estimates that a commercial assay using this panel, if approved by the Food and Drug Administration, should cost less than $100.

Dr. Almario, an assistant professor of medicine at the Cedars-Sinai Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Los Angeles, agreed that an FDA-approved blood-based screening test would be a “game-changer,” as long as it’s accurate and effective.

Though Dr. Almario did not review the data in Goel’s study, he said in an interview that a blood test for colorectal cancer screening would be “the holy grail, so to speak, in terms of really moving the needle on screening uptake.”
 

Next steps

Dr. Chan noted that one caveat to consider with this study is that it was done in a relatively small population of individuals, even though the test was validated in a second set of plasma samples.

“Additional validation needs to be done in larger numbers of patients to really understand the performance characteristics because it is possible that some of these signatures may, when they’re using a broader group of individuals, not perform as well,” Dr. Chan said.

Dr. Goel said he is working with several companies right now to develop and further test a commercial product. He anticipates it may be shelf-ready in 2-5 years.

“The take-home message is that clinicians need to be more cognizant of the fact that incidence of this disease is rising, and we need to do something about it,” Dr. Goel said, particularly for those younger than 45 years who currently don’t have a screening option.

“Now we have at least a sliver of hope for those who might be suffering from this disease, for those for whom we have zero screening or diagnostic tests,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Fundación MAPFRE Guanarteme. Dr. Goel, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Almario reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A simple blood test that looks for a combination of specific RNA snippets may become a novel way to screen for early-onset colorectal cancer, suggests a new study published online in Gastroenterology.

Researchers identified four microRNAs that together comprise a signature biomarker that can be used to detect and diagnose the presence of colorectal cancer from a liquid biopsy in a younger population.

MicroRNAs, or miRNAs, are small RNA molecules that do not encode proteins but are used instead to regulate gene expression. The study authors developed and validated a panel that detects four miRNAs occurring at higher levels in plasma samples from patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, with high sensitivity and specificity.

“The point would be to use this test as a routine part of annual healthcare, or for people in high-risk families every 6 months,” study senior author Ajay Goel, PhD, MS, chair of the department of molecular diagnostics and experimental therapeutics at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

“It’s affordable, it can be done easily from a small tube of blood, and as long as that test stays negative, you’re good,” Dr. Goel said, because even if patients miss a test, the next one, whether it’s 6 months or a year later, will catch any potential cancer.

“Colon cancer is not going to kill somebody overnight, so this should be used as a precursor to colonoscopy. As long as that test is negative, you can postpone a colonoscopy,” he said.

Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview that the findings are exciting.

“It would be really value-added to have a blood-based screening test,” Dr. Chan said, adding that researchers have pursued multiple different avenues in pursuit of one. “It’s very nice to see that area progress and to actually have some evidence that microRNAs could be a potential biomarker for colorectal cancer.”
 

Screening now insufficient for early-onset disease

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently lowered the recommended age to 45 years to begin screening for colorectal cancer. Part of the rationale for the change came from the rising rates of early-onset colorectal cancer, a distinct clinical and molecular entity that tends to have poorer survival than late-onset disease, the authors noted.

Early-onset disease, occurring primarily in people under 50 without a family or genetic history of colorectal cancer, now makes up about 10%-15% of all new cases and continues to rise, they write.

“Early-onset colorectal cancer patients are more likely to exhibit an advanced stage tumor at initial presentation, distal tumor localization, signet ring histology, and a disease presentation with concurrent metastasis,” the authors wrote. “This raises the logistical clinical concern that, since the tumors in early-onset colorectal cancer patients are often more aggressive than those with late-onset colorectal cancer, a delayed diagnosis could have a significant adverse impact and can lead to early death.”

Yet current screening strategies are insufficient for detecting enough early-onset cases, the authors assert.

Colonoscopies are invasive, carry a risk for complications, and are cost- and time-prohibitive for people at average risk. Meanwhile, existing fecal and blood tests “lack adequate diagnostic performance for the early detection of colorectal cancer, especially early-onset colorectal cancer, as these assays have yet to be explored or developed in this population,” they wrote.

The ideal “diagnostic modality should preferably be acceptable to healthy individuals, inexpensive, rapid, and preferably noninvasive,” they note.
 

Finding and validating miRNA

The researchers therefore turned to the concept of a liquid biopsy, focusing on identifying miRNAs associated with colorectal cancer, because their expression tends to be stable in tissues, blood, stool, and other body fluids.

They first analyzed an miRNA expression profiling dataset from 1,061 individuals to look for miRNAs whose expression was higher in colorectal cancer patients. The dataset included 42 patients with stage 1-2 early-onset colorectal cancer, 370 patients with stage 1-2 late-onset colorectal cancer, 62 patients younger than 50 years without cancer, and 587 patients aged 50 years or older without cancer.

The researchers found 28 miRNAs that were significantly unregulated in early-onset colorectal cancer tissue samples, compared with cancer-free samples and 11 miRNAs unregulated specifically in only the early-onset colorectal cancer samples. Four of these 11 miRNAs were adequately distinct from one another and were detectable in the plasma samples that the researchers would use to train and validate them as a combination biomarker.

The researchers used 117 plasma samples from Japan, including 72 from people with early-onset colorectal cancer and 45 from healthy donors, to develop and train an assay detecting the four miRNAs. They then validated the assay using 142 plasma samples from Spain, including 77 with early-onset colorectal cancer and 65 healthy donors.

In the Japan cohort, the four-miRNA assay had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 80%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 88% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 84%. In the Spain cohort used for validation, the assay performed with a sensitivity of 82%, a specificity of 86%, a PPV of 88%, and an NPV of 80%.

“Taken together, the genome-wide transcriptomic profiling approach was indeed robust, as it identified the biomarkers that were successfully trained and validated in plasma specimens from independent cohorts of patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, hence highlighting their translational potential in the clinic for the detection of this malignancy in early stages,” the authors wrote.

By disease stage, the four-miRNA panel identified both early-stage (stage 1-2; sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%) and late-stage (stage 3-4; sensitivity, 79%; specificity, 86%) early-onset colorectal cancer in the validation cohort.
 

Clinical benefit of blood test

The researchers also assessed the benefit-harm trade-off of this liquid biopsy assay compared with other screening modalities, taking into consideration the risk for false positives and false negatives.

A decision curve analysis “revealed that the miRNA panel achieved a higher net benefit regardless of threshold probability in comparison to intervention for all patients or none of the patients,” the researchers reported. “These findings suggest that this miRNA panel might offer more clinical benefit with regards to the avoidance of physical harm and misdiagnosis.”

They also found that expression levels of these four miRNAs significantly decreased after surgical removal of the colorectal cancer, strongly suggesting that the miRNAs do originate with the tumor.

“To have a relatively inexpensive and noninvasive means of screening a younger population is a very important unmet need,” said Dr. Chan.

It’s not feasible to recommend colonoscopies in people younger than 45 years because of resource constraints, he said, so “this is a wonderful new development to actually have the possibility of a blood-based screening test for younger individuals, especially given that rising incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

Dr. Goel pointed out that only half of those recommended to get screened for colorectal cancer actually undergo screening, and a large reason for that is the desire to avoid colonoscopy, a concern echoed in the findings of a recent study by Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, and colleagues.

Dr. Goel expects that this strategy would increase compliance with screening because it’s less invasive and more affordable, particularly for younger patients. He estimates that a commercial assay using this panel, if approved by the Food and Drug Administration, should cost less than $100.

Dr. Almario, an assistant professor of medicine at the Cedars-Sinai Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Los Angeles, agreed that an FDA-approved blood-based screening test would be a “game-changer,” as long as it’s accurate and effective.

Though Dr. Almario did not review the data in Goel’s study, he said in an interview that a blood test for colorectal cancer screening would be “the holy grail, so to speak, in terms of really moving the needle on screening uptake.”
 

Next steps

Dr. Chan noted that one caveat to consider with this study is that it was done in a relatively small population of individuals, even though the test was validated in a second set of plasma samples.

“Additional validation needs to be done in larger numbers of patients to really understand the performance characteristics because it is possible that some of these signatures may, when they’re using a broader group of individuals, not perform as well,” Dr. Chan said.

Dr. Goel said he is working with several companies right now to develop and further test a commercial product. He anticipates it may be shelf-ready in 2-5 years.

“The take-home message is that clinicians need to be more cognizant of the fact that incidence of this disease is rising, and we need to do something about it,” Dr. Goel said, particularly for those younger than 45 years who currently don’t have a screening option.

“Now we have at least a sliver of hope for those who might be suffering from this disease, for those for whom we have zero screening or diagnostic tests,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Fundación MAPFRE Guanarteme. Dr. Goel, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Almario reported no conflicts of interest.

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

About one in four patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have an unsatisfactory antibody response to the Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Booster vaccination increased binding and neutralizing antibody titers to Omicron, but antibody titers declined after 3 months. These data highlight the concern for patients with cancer given the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” wrote the authors, who were led by Rafi Ahmed, PhD, Emory University, Atlanta.

Researchers found that 18% had no detectable antibody at all and active treatment type had no association with vaccine response.

Researchers examined antibody titers among 82 NSCLC patients and 53 healthy volunteers. They collected blood samples longitudinally for analysis. While most patients had binding and neutralizing antibody titers that were comparable with healthy volunteers, 25% had poor responses, which led to six- to sevenfold lower titers than healthy controls. There was no association between worse vaccine responses and history of programmed death–1 monotherapy, chemotherapy, or both in combination. Receipt of a booster vaccine improved binding and neutralizing antibody titers to both the wild type and the Omicron variant, but 2-4 months after the booster there was a five- to sevenfold decrease in neutralizing titers to both the wild type and Omicron variant.

“This study indicates both the need to monitor our patients with lung cancer for response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, identify the nonresponders for follow-up and further attempts at immunization, and continue collecting and analyzing clinicodemographic information and biospecimens from our patients,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

Although the findings reveal potential concerns, the good news is that most patients NSCLC patients do respond normally to COVID-19 vaccination, said John D. Minna, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, lead author of the editorial.

He offered some advice to physicians. “You can test your patients using currently available [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments]–approved lab tests to determine what their antibody titers are. This should be done after boosting since titers will go down after time. We know that if a patient has lung cancer and they do get infected with SARS-CoV-2 that potentially they could develop serious COVID-19 disease. Besides giving antiviral treatment, it is important that they be closely monitored for symptoms of progression so if they need to be hospitalized it can be done in a prudent manner,” said Dr. Minna, who is director of the Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

No clinical details have emerged that might predict which patients have an insufficient response to vaccination. “When we started these studies, a lot of us thought that anyone who did not develop a good antibody response would be weak or sicker. For example, [patients with] late-stage disease, or having had a lot of therapy, or perhaps immune checkpoint blockade. However, none of these things are correlated. The main advice we are giving our lung cancer patients are to get vaccinated, get boosted (double boosted), and just do the smart thing to protect yourself from exposure,” he said.

For example, when traveling on a plane, patients should wear a mask. They should also avoid large indoor events. He also recommended that, following vaccination and boosters, patients seek out CLIA-certified tests to get their titer checked.

“Upon any COVID infection, even if their titer is at or above 80%, patients should see their physician to consider treatment with Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), which has emergency use authorization. For patients with a lower titer, it’s important to seek out a physician and consider Paxlovid and possibly antibody therapy. But these are individual decisions to be made with your doctor,” Dr. Minna said.

The next important research question is what happens to T-cell immune response following vaccination. “We know that a good cellular immune response is also important in preventing infection and severe infection, but we don’t yet know which persons (with or without cancer) have good T-cell responses. This information will also likely impact what we tell our patients and will add to the antibody data,” he said.

Studies are ongoing to determine specific T-cell responses to mRNA vaccines, and how well those T-cell responses respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the laboratory.

About one in four patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have an unsatisfactory antibody response to the Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Booster vaccination increased binding and neutralizing antibody titers to Omicron, but antibody titers declined after 3 months. These data highlight the concern for patients with cancer given the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” wrote the authors, who were led by Rafi Ahmed, PhD, Emory University, Atlanta.

Researchers found that 18% had no detectable antibody at all and active treatment type had no association with vaccine response.

Researchers examined antibody titers among 82 NSCLC patients and 53 healthy volunteers. They collected blood samples longitudinally for analysis. While most patients had binding and neutralizing antibody titers that were comparable with healthy volunteers, 25% had poor responses, which led to six- to sevenfold lower titers than healthy controls. There was no association between worse vaccine responses and history of programmed death–1 monotherapy, chemotherapy, or both in combination. Receipt of a booster vaccine improved binding and neutralizing antibody titers to both the wild type and the Omicron variant, but 2-4 months after the booster there was a five- to sevenfold decrease in neutralizing titers to both the wild type and Omicron variant.

“This study indicates both the need to monitor our patients with lung cancer for response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, identify the nonresponders for follow-up and further attempts at immunization, and continue collecting and analyzing clinicodemographic information and biospecimens from our patients,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

Although the findings reveal potential concerns, the good news is that most patients NSCLC patients do respond normally to COVID-19 vaccination, said John D. Minna, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, lead author of the editorial.

He offered some advice to physicians. “You can test your patients using currently available [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments]–approved lab tests to determine what their antibody titers are. This should be done after boosting since titers will go down after time. We know that if a patient has lung cancer and they do get infected with SARS-CoV-2 that potentially they could develop serious COVID-19 disease. Besides giving antiviral treatment, it is important that they be closely monitored for symptoms of progression so if they need to be hospitalized it can be done in a prudent manner,” said Dr. Minna, who is director of the Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

No clinical details have emerged that might predict which patients have an insufficient response to vaccination. “When we started these studies, a lot of us thought that anyone who did not develop a good antibody response would be weak or sicker. For example, [patients with] late-stage disease, or having had a lot of therapy, or perhaps immune checkpoint blockade. However, none of these things are correlated. The main advice we are giving our lung cancer patients are to get vaccinated, get boosted (double boosted), and just do the smart thing to protect yourself from exposure,” he said.

For example, when traveling on a plane, patients should wear a mask. They should also avoid large indoor events. He also recommended that, following vaccination and boosters, patients seek out CLIA-certified tests to get their titer checked.

“Upon any COVID infection, even if their titer is at or above 80%, patients should see their physician to consider treatment with Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), which has emergency use authorization. For patients with a lower titer, it’s important to seek out a physician and consider Paxlovid and possibly antibody therapy. But these are individual decisions to be made with your doctor,” Dr. Minna said.

The next important research question is what happens to T-cell immune response following vaccination. “We know that a good cellular immune response is also important in preventing infection and severe infection, but we don’t yet know which persons (with or without cancer) have good T-cell responses. This information will also likely impact what we tell our patients and will add to the antibody data,” he said.

Studies are ongoing to determine specific T-cell responses to mRNA vaccines, and how well those T-cell responses respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the laboratory.

About one in four patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have an unsatisfactory antibody response to the Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Booster vaccination increased binding and neutralizing antibody titers to Omicron, but antibody titers declined after 3 months. These data highlight the concern for patients with cancer given the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” wrote the authors, who were led by Rafi Ahmed, PhD, Emory University, Atlanta.

Researchers found that 18% had no detectable antibody at all and active treatment type had no association with vaccine response.

Researchers examined antibody titers among 82 NSCLC patients and 53 healthy volunteers. They collected blood samples longitudinally for analysis. While most patients had binding and neutralizing antibody titers that were comparable with healthy volunteers, 25% had poor responses, which led to six- to sevenfold lower titers than healthy controls. There was no association between worse vaccine responses and history of programmed death–1 monotherapy, chemotherapy, or both in combination. Receipt of a booster vaccine improved binding and neutralizing antibody titers to both the wild type and the Omicron variant, but 2-4 months after the booster there was a five- to sevenfold decrease in neutralizing titers to both the wild type and Omicron variant.

“This study indicates both the need to monitor our patients with lung cancer for response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, identify the nonresponders for follow-up and further attempts at immunization, and continue collecting and analyzing clinicodemographic information and biospecimens from our patients,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

Although the findings reveal potential concerns, the good news is that most patients NSCLC patients do respond normally to COVID-19 vaccination, said John D. Minna, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, lead author of the editorial.

He offered some advice to physicians. “You can test your patients using currently available [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments]–approved lab tests to determine what their antibody titers are. This should be done after boosting since titers will go down after time. We know that if a patient has lung cancer and they do get infected with SARS-CoV-2 that potentially they could develop serious COVID-19 disease. Besides giving antiviral treatment, it is important that they be closely monitored for symptoms of progression so if they need to be hospitalized it can be done in a prudent manner,” said Dr. Minna, who is director of the Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

No clinical details have emerged that might predict which patients have an insufficient response to vaccination. “When we started these studies, a lot of us thought that anyone who did not develop a good antibody response would be weak or sicker. For example, [patients with] late-stage disease, or having had a lot of therapy, or perhaps immune checkpoint blockade. However, none of these things are correlated. The main advice we are giving our lung cancer patients are to get vaccinated, get boosted (double boosted), and just do the smart thing to protect yourself from exposure,” he said.

For example, when traveling on a plane, patients should wear a mask. They should also avoid large indoor events. He also recommended that, following vaccination and boosters, patients seek out CLIA-certified tests to get their titer checked.

“Upon any COVID infection, even if their titer is at or above 80%, patients should see their physician to consider treatment with Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), which has emergency use authorization. For patients with a lower titer, it’s important to seek out a physician and consider Paxlovid and possibly antibody therapy. But these are individual decisions to be made with your doctor,” Dr. Minna said.

The next important research question is what happens to T-cell immune response following vaccination. “We know that a good cellular immune response is also important in preventing infection and severe infection, but we don’t yet know which persons (with or without cancer) have good T-cell responses. This information will also likely impact what we tell our patients and will add to the antibody data,” he said.

Studies are ongoing to determine specific T-cell responses to mRNA vaccines, and how well those T-cell responses respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the laboratory.

The combination of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with an immune checkpoint inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, shows a new study.

While the combination has been shown to be beneficial in renal cell carcinoma and other solid tumor types, it has never before been tested in a phase 3 clinical trial for hepatocellular carcinoma until now.

The new study, published in The Lancet Oncology, included 837 patients from 178 hospital in 32 countries who were enrolled in the study (called COSMIC-312) between December 2018 and August 2020. 432 patients were randomly assigned to receive a combination of cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Exelixis), a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), and atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech), a PD-L1 inhibitor. While 217 patients were treated with sorafenib (Nexavar, Bayer) alone and 188 patients were treated with cabozantinib.

Clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival, increased disease control and lower primary progression were seen in patients who received the cabozantinib and atezolizumab combination therapy over patients who were treated with sorafenib. However, there was no improvement in overall survival.

“The improvement in progression-free survival with cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in this study shows that the combination confers clinical benefit for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy,” wrote the authors of the study, led by Robin Kate Kelley, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with the University of California, San Francisco, and Lorenza Rimassa, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with Humanitas University, Milan. “The absence of a benefit in overall survival, along with the availability of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab, indicates the need for additional studies to determine if cabozantinib plus atezolizumab would be an appropriate first-line treatment option in select patient populations.”

For symptomatic patients with high disease burden or main portal vein occlusion who are at risk for impending complications, controlling the disease as quickly as possible is vital, the authors wrote. “Underlying chronic liver disease is nearly universal in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding is high in this population, particularly if portal vein tumor thrombus is present.”

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an angiogenic tumor, making it a logical target for TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor. The TKI sorafenib was the first to be approved as a first-line treatment for HCC, and since then immune checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to induce durable responses in the first-line setting, but have not improved overall survival in randomized trials.
 

Study methodology

In the study, after a median follow-up of 15.8 months, median progression-free survival was 6.8 months in the combination group and 4.2 months in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.63; P = .0012). The median overall survival was 15.4 months in the combination group and 15.5 months in the sorafenib group (not significant). Grade 3-4 adverse events included an increase in ALT, which occurred in 9% of the combination group, 3% of the sorafenib group, and 6% of the cabozantinib only group; hypertension (9%, 8%, and 12%, respectively); an increase in AST increase (9%, 4%, 10%); and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (8%, 8%, 9%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18% of patients in the combination arm, 8% in the sorafenib arm, and 13% in the cabozantinib arm.

There were no excess serious bleeding events in the treatment groups containing cabozantinib, compared with sorafenib which is noteworthy because HCC patients are at high risk for gastrointestinal bleeding.

Treatment-related grade 5 events were rare, occurring in 1% (six patients) of the combination group, and in just one patient in both the sorafenib and cabozantinib groups.

Although the results suggest promising clinical benefit, the lack of overall survival benefit limit the implications of these findings. Since atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab is also available for this patient population, more research is needed to determine if cabozantinib plus atezolizumab can become a first-line option.

The study had some limitations: Participants had to have a Child-Pugh class of A, though there was no requirement to assess for fibrosis or cirrhosis. Otherwise there were few barriers to study entry.

The study was sponsored by Exelixis (Alameda) and Ipsen (Boulogne-Billancourt, France).

The combination of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with an immune checkpoint inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, shows a new study.

While the combination has been shown to be beneficial in renal cell carcinoma and other solid tumor types, it has never before been tested in a phase 3 clinical trial for hepatocellular carcinoma until now.

The new study, published in The Lancet Oncology, included 837 patients from 178 hospital in 32 countries who were enrolled in the study (called COSMIC-312) between December 2018 and August 2020. 432 patients were randomly assigned to receive a combination of cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Exelixis), a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), and atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech), a PD-L1 inhibitor. While 217 patients were treated with sorafenib (Nexavar, Bayer) alone and 188 patients were treated with cabozantinib.

Clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival, increased disease control and lower primary progression were seen in patients who received the cabozantinib and atezolizumab combination therapy over patients who were treated with sorafenib. However, there was no improvement in overall survival.

“The improvement in progression-free survival with cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in this study shows that the combination confers clinical benefit for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy,” wrote the authors of the study, led by Robin Kate Kelley, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with the University of California, San Francisco, and Lorenza Rimassa, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with Humanitas University, Milan. “The absence of a benefit in overall survival, along with the availability of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab, indicates the need for additional studies to determine if cabozantinib plus atezolizumab would be an appropriate first-line treatment option in select patient populations.”

For symptomatic patients with high disease burden or main portal vein occlusion who are at risk for impending complications, controlling the disease as quickly as possible is vital, the authors wrote. “Underlying chronic liver disease is nearly universal in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding is high in this population, particularly if portal vein tumor thrombus is present.”

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an angiogenic tumor, making it a logical target for TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor. The TKI sorafenib was the first to be approved as a first-line treatment for HCC, and since then immune checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to induce durable responses in the first-line setting, but have not improved overall survival in randomized trials.
 

Study methodology

In the study, after a median follow-up of 15.8 months, median progression-free survival was 6.8 months in the combination group and 4.2 months in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.63; P = .0012). The median overall survival was 15.4 months in the combination group and 15.5 months in the sorafenib group (not significant). Grade 3-4 adverse events included an increase in ALT, which occurred in 9% of the combination group, 3% of the sorafenib group, and 6% of the cabozantinib only group; hypertension (9%, 8%, and 12%, respectively); an increase in AST increase (9%, 4%, 10%); and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (8%, 8%, 9%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18% of patients in the combination arm, 8% in the sorafenib arm, and 13% in the cabozantinib arm.

There were no excess serious bleeding events in the treatment groups containing cabozantinib, compared with sorafenib which is noteworthy because HCC patients are at high risk for gastrointestinal bleeding.

Treatment-related grade 5 events were rare, occurring in 1% (six patients) of the combination group, and in just one patient in both the sorafenib and cabozantinib groups.

Although the results suggest promising clinical benefit, the lack of overall survival benefit limit the implications of these findings. Since atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab is also available for this patient population, more research is needed to determine if cabozantinib plus atezolizumab can become a first-line option.

The study had some limitations: Participants had to have a Child-Pugh class of A, though there was no requirement to assess for fibrosis or cirrhosis. Otherwise there were few barriers to study entry.

The study was sponsored by Exelixis (Alameda) and Ipsen (Boulogne-Billancourt, France).

The combination of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with an immune checkpoint inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, shows a new study.

While the combination has been shown to be beneficial in renal cell carcinoma and other solid tumor types, it has never before been tested in a phase 3 clinical trial for hepatocellular carcinoma until now.

The new study, published in The Lancet Oncology, included 837 patients from 178 hospital in 32 countries who were enrolled in the study (called COSMIC-312) between December 2018 and August 2020. 432 patients were randomly assigned to receive a combination of cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Exelixis), a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), and atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech), a PD-L1 inhibitor. While 217 patients were treated with sorafenib (Nexavar, Bayer) alone and 188 patients were treated with cabozantinib.

Clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival, increased disease control and lower primary progression were seen in patients who received the cabozantinib and atezolizumab combination therapy over patients who were treated with sorafenib. However, there was no improvement in overall survival.

“The improvement in progression-free survival with cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in this study shows that the combination confers clinical benefit for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy,” wrote the authors of the study, led by Robin Kate Kelley, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with the University of California, San Francisco, and Lorenza Rimassa, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with Humanitas University, Milan. “The absence of a benefit in overall survival, along with the availability of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab, indicates the need for additional studies to determine if cabozantinib plus atezolizumab would be an appropriate first-line treatment option in select patient populations.”

For symptomatic patients with high disease burden or main portal vein occlusion who are at risk for impending complications, controlling the disease as quickly as possible is vital, the authors wrote. “Underlying chronic liver disease is nearly universal in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding is high in this population, particularly if portal vein tumor thrombus is present.”

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an angiogenic tumor, making it a logical target for TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor. The TKI sorafenib was the first to be approved as a first-line treatment for HCC, and since then immune checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to induce durable responses in the first-line setting, but have not improved overall survival in randomized trials.
 

Study methodology

In the study, after a median follow-up of 15.8 months, median progression-free survival was 6.8 months in the combination group and 4.2 months in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.63; P = .0012). The median overall survival was 15.4 months in the combination group and 15.5 months in the sorafenib group (not significant). Grade 3-4 adverse events included an increase in ALT, which occurred in 9% of the combination group, 3% of the sorafenib group, and 6% of the cabozantinib only group; hypertension (9%, 8%, and 12%, respectively); an increase in AST increase (9%, 4%, 10%); and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (8%, 8%, 9%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18% of patients in the combination arm, 8% in the sorafenib arm, and 13% in the cabozantinib arm.

There were no excess serious bleeding events in the treatment groups containing cabozantinib, compared with sorafenib which is noteworthy because HCC patients are at high risk for gastrointestinal bleeding.

Treatment-related grade 5 events were rare, occurring in 1% (six patients) of the combination group, and in just one patient in both the sorafenib and cabozantinib groups.

Although the results suggest promising clinical benefit, the lack of overall survival benefit limit the implications of these findings. Since atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab is also available for this patient population, more research is needed to determine if cabozantinib plus atezolizumab can become a first-line option.

The study had some limitations: Participants had to have a Child-Pugh class of A, though there was no requirement to assess for fibrosis or cirrhosis. Otherwise there were few barriers to study entry.

The study was sponsored by Exelixis (Alameda) and Ipsen (Boulogne-Billancourt, France).