AVAHO

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

As a field, radiation oncology is perhaps one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Sometimes, even our own colleagues don’t know where our department exists in the hospital or exactly what we do.

As two radiation oncologists who are, in fact, the children of radiation oncologists, we will admit that it’s possible we are a tiny bit biased. We cannot lie, though: Our field is a hidden gem.

What is well known is that radiation oncologists have a symbiotic relationship with our treatment technology. The evolution of treatment machines and radiation precision allows us to deliver patient-tailored treatment down to the millimeter. What may get lost in the discussions of isodose lines and penumbra, however, is that we’ve also got cutting-edge research and personalized patient care within a specialized team in the depths of the hospital.

Because the inner workings of what happens to patients as they come in and out of our office remains a mystery, we hope to use this space to clarify the top five things most physicians don’t know about radiation oncology.
 

1. Nobody knows what goes on in the basement.

Misconceptions about our subspecialty are common, even among other oncologists. A frequent misconception is that a radiation oncologist’s involvement in patient care is limited, and radiation is delivered in a standardized manner. This essentially renders radiation oncologists technicians of expensive machines.

In reality however, radiation oncologists touch every aspect of a patient’s care, and customized radiation therapy may be indicated for virtually every cancer site in both curative and palliative settings. We strive to deliver precision medicine and practice truly patient-centered care.

To cure cancer, radiation may be used in the neoadjuvant (prior to local surgical resection), definitive (as the primary local therapy), and adjuvant (postsurgical) setting. In palliative cases, radiation can be used to treat areas of metastatic spread as well as primary unresectable tumors to alleviate obstruction and/or bleeding symptoms. Referral to radiation oncology, therefore, can be appropriate at many different points of time on the continuum of cancer care.

For many treating radiation oncologists, the close personal connections that we form with our patients is one of the primary reasons we went into this field. Not only are we making patient-centered clinical decisions during every step of the treatment plan evaluation and optimization but we also see our patients weekly for clinical visits and then ongoing in visits that may span many years of survivorship.

Our deep commitment to addressing patient needs as they are receiving treatment and responsibility for late radiation effects is absolutely an integral part of our training and lifelong practice.
 

2. We get down in the details.

The workflow from consultation to radiation delivery can be confusing for anyone outside our specialized field.

Once seen in consult and considered a good candidate for radiation, patients will enter the essential next step: the treatment planning imaging – or “simulation.”

The simulation scan – mostly CT, although occasionally fused MRI or PET – involves a separate appointment and another hour or so of arranging and scanning patients in the exact position that they will be treated. Given the precision of modern radiation, the simulation often includes making a customized mold so patients have minimal movement during treatment. These simulation images allow the radiation oncology team to create a treatment plan that is customized to each patient and precisely reproducible during their course of radiation treatments – what’s known as fractions.

Creating a treatment plan involves a radiation oncologist literally drawing – or contouring – on pictures of the patient’s internal anatomy in three dimensions. Radiation oncologists contour exactly where the cancer is – or where it was if the treatment is given postoperatively – and identify the surrounding organs so that the doses can be preferentially directed to the cancer target and minimize risk to nearby organs. This precision is within millimeters and accounts for microscopic disease, organ motion, and patient setup. Ultimately, we create colorful heat gradient volumes of the anticipated radiation dose delivery and optimize these to reflect our planning priorities.

We use advanced technologies to shape the beams of radiation to treat the tumor and avoid delivering high doses to the neighboring tissues with techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR or SBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery. We can also take advantage of the unique properties of different modalities, such as proton therapy and electron therapy, to achieve these same goals if indicated. Radiation oncologists live for precision medicine in every aspect of their workflow.
 

3. We roll deep.

Radiation oncology is exemplary of “the art of medicine.” We fuse anatomy-based treatment design with advanced technology and orchestrate the daily functions of a large medical team.

But, the treatment plan and delivery would not be possible without the input and care given within a large multi- and intradisciplinary team of oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, radiation therapists, nurses, social workers, and other support staff. Radiation oncologists participate in regular tumor boards with surgeons, medical oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists to optimize interdisciplinary management of complex patients, providing a thoughtful tumor localization and treatment plan, as well as to better understand an individual’s ongoing symptoms and well-being as a whole. Considering all aspects of what a patient may need involves communication with fellow physicians, nurse navigators, and social workers.

Within our own department, treatment plan creation and quality checking or verification can sometimes take over 2 weeks, with detailed input from dosimetrists and medical physicists. The actual treatment delivery involves daily communication with the radiation therapists who are dedicated to each treatment machine – like the linear accelerator – and symptom management with clinic nurses and supportive staff, such as physical therapists and registered dietitians.

This massive team effort is required to get each patient through daily radiation treatments that can last 7 weeks and may require rapid replanning if the tumor shrinks or the patient loses weight.

As part of this team, radiation oncologists are uniquely positioned to quarterback each play and guide the entire game strategy.
 

4. Radiation therapy takes a lot of heat.

Radiation therapy is often blamed for issues unrelated to the treatment. Irradiating the pelvis for prostate cancer, for instance, does not cause a headache or heartburn during or after treatment.

Other than fatigue, associated side effects are localized and related to the total radiation dose and fraction size – how much and how fast – that reaches the surrounding tissues.

Our colleagues often swap stories of the bizarre things radiation therapy has been blamed for, including dental problems in someone receiving vaginal cylinder treatment, heart dysfunction in someone treated for rectal cancer, and hip fracture in someone treated for breast cancer because the radiation “destroyed” their bones. At best, these are humorous stories, but at worst, they can delay diagnosis and treatment of what is truly causing someone’s symptoms.
 

5. We truly believe that less is more.

One of the most fundamental aspects of radiation oncology is our drive to optimize treatment delivery and continually improve patient care – sometimes at our own field’s economic detriment. We’re dedicated to showing that patients may get the same benefit from less and less radiation.

In the past 2 decades, the evolution and adoption of photon IMRT and proton therapy has allowed radiation plans to successfully spare surrounding tissue while improving our targeting. This evolution is coupled with technological and imaging advances that allow us to delivery of doses to certain tumors via SABR/SBRT in one to five total fractions.

A prime example: Treatment to eradicate lung or gastrointestinal tumors, which used to span up to 6 weeks, can now potentially be delivered in as little as 1 week.

For other common cancers, hypofractionation – slightly higher radiation doses per fraction at fewer total fractions overall – has revolutionized patient care, providing less radiation without impacting survival or increasing treatment toxicity.

Take breast cancer care: 50 years ago, virtually all patients with breast cancer received a mastectomy and lymph node dissections. Today, surgical techniques for lumpectomy paired with radiation therapy to the whole breast now allows us to preserve disease-free survival for those who elected to keep their breasts.

Over the past 20 years, the standards of care have shifted from 6-7 weeks of treatment to 3-4 weeks using a hypofractionated model that involves daily whole-breast radiation. The most recent clinical trials have shown that whole-breast radiation can be delivered safely and effectively for select women in as few as five fractions with either whole or partial breast targeting. Additional research driven by the idea of “right sizing” radiation treatment has even shown that certain women may not need radiation at all.

This evolution in radiation therapy illustrates how our subspecialty is constantly working to improve survival and patient well-being, form deep connections with our patients, and push the boundaries of medical innovations.

We are proud to be radiation oncologists and happy to share more. Want to know more about what goes on in the basement? Come on down, we’re happy to show you around.

Dr. Giap is a resident in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Chino is an assistant attending in the department of radiation oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Neither reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

As a field, radiation oncology is perhaps one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Sometimes, even our own colleagues don’t know where our department exists in the hospital or exactly what we do.

As two radiation oncologists who are, in fact, the children of radiation oncologists, we will admit that it’s possible we are a tiny bit biased. We cannot lie, though: Our field is a hidden gem.

What is well known is that radiation oncologists have a symbiotic relationship with our treatment technology. The evolution of treatment machines and radiation precision allows us to deliver patient-tailored treatment down to the millimeter. What may get lost in the discussions of isodose lines and penumbra, however, is that we’ve also got cutting-edge research and personalized patient care within a specialized team in the depths of the hospital.

Because the inner workings of what happens to patients as they come in and out of our office remains a mystery, we hope to use this space to clarify the top five things most physicians don’t know about radiation oncology.
 

1. Nobody knows what goes on in the basement.

Misconceptions about our subspecialty are common, even among other oncologists. A frequent misconception is that a radiation oncologist’s involvement in patient care is limited, and radiation is delivered in a standardized manner. This essentially renders radiation oncologists technicians of expensive machines.

In reality however, radiation oncologists touch every aspect of a patient’s care, and customized radiation therapy may be indicated for virtually every cancer site in both curative and palliative settings. We strive to deliver precision medicine and practice truly patient-centered care.

To cure cancer, radiation may be used in the neoadjuvant (prior to local surgical resection), definitive (as the primary local therapy), and adjuvant (postsurgical) setting. In palliative cases, radiation can be used to treat areas of metastatic spread as well as primary unresectable tumors to alleviate obstruction and/or bleeding symptoms. Referral to radiation oncology, therefore, can be appropriate at many different points of time on the continuum of cancer care.

For many treating radiation oncologists, the close personal connections that we form with our patients is one of the primary reasons we went into this field. Not only are we making patient-centered clinical decisions during every step of the treatment plan evaluation and optimization but we also see our patients weekly for clinical visits and then ongoing in visits that may span many years of survivorship.

Our deep commitment to addressing patient needs as they are receiving treatment and responsibility for late radiation effects is absolutely an integral part of our training and lifelong practice.
 

2. We get down in the details.

The workflow from consultation to radiation delivery can be confusing for anyone outside our specialized field.

Once seen in consult and considered a good candidate for radiation, patients will enter the essential next step: the treatment planning imaging – or “simulation.”

The simulation scan – mostly CT, although occasionally fused MRI or PET – involves a separate appointment and another hour or so of arranging and scanning patients in the exact position that they will be treated. Given the precision of modern radiation, the simulation often includes making a customized mold so patients have minimal movement during treatment. These simulation images allow the radiation oncology team to create a treatment plan that is customized to each patient and precisely reproducible during their course of radiation treatments – what’s known as fractions.

Creating a treatment plan involves a radiation oncologist literally drawing – or contouring – on pictures of the patient’s internal anatomy in three dimensions. Radiation oncologists contour exactly where the cancer is – or where it was if the treatment is given postoperatively – and identify the surrounding organs so that the doses can be preferentially directed to the cancer target and minimize risk to nearby organs. This precision is within millimeters and accounts for microscopic disease, organ motion, and patient setup. Ultimately, we create colorful heat gradient volumes of the anticipated radiation dose delivery and optimize these to reflect our planning priorities.

We use advanced technologies to shape the beams of radiation to treat the tumor and avoid delivering high doses to the neighboring tissues with techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR or SBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery. We can also take advantage of the unique properties of different modalities, such as proton therapy and electron therapy, to achieve these same goals if indicated. Radiation oncologists live for precision medicine in every aspect of their workflow.
 

3. We roll deep.

Radiation oncology is exemplary of “the art of medicine.” We fuse anatomy-based treatment design with advanced technology and orchestrate the daily functions of a large medical team.

But, the treatment plan and delivery would not be possible without the input and care given within a large multi- and intradisciplinary team of oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, radiation therapists, nurses, social workers, and other support staff. Radiation oncologists participate in regular tumor boards with surgeons, medical oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists to optimize interdisciplinary management of complex patients, providing a thoughtful tumor localization and treatment plan, as well as to better understand an individual’s ongoing symptoms and well-being as a whole. Considering all aspects of what a patient may need involves communication with fellow physicians, nurse navigators, and social workers.

Within our own department, treatment plan creation and quality checking or verification can sometimes take over 2 weeks, with detailed input from dosimetrists and medical physicists. The actual treatment delivery involves daily communication with the radiation therapists who are dedicated to each treatment machine – like the linear accelerator – and symptom management with clinic nurses and supportive staff, such as physical therapists and registered dietitians.

This massive team effort is required to get each patient through daily radiation treatments that can last 7 weeks and may require rapid replanning if the tumor shrinks or the patient loses weight.

As part of this team, radiation oncologists are uniquely positioned to quarterback each play and guide the entire game strategy.
 

4. Radiation therapy takes a lot of heat.

Radiation therapy is often blamed for issues unrelated to the treatment. Irradiating the pelvis for prostate cancer, for instance, does not cause a headache or heartburn during or after treatment.

Other than fatigue, associated side effects are localized and related to the total radiation dose and fraction size – how much and how fast – that reaches the surrounding tissues.

Our colleagues often swap stories of the bizarre things radiation therapy has been blamed for, including dental problems in someone receiving vaginal cylinder treatment, heart dysfunction in someone treated for rectal cancer, and hip fracture in someone treated for breast cancer because the radiation “destroyed” their bones. At best, these are humorous stories, but at worst, they can delay diagnosis and treatment of what is truly causing someone’s symptoms.
 

5. We truly believe that less is more.

One of the most fundamental aspects of radiation oncology is our drive to optimize treatment delivery and continually improve patient care – sometimes at our own field’s economic detriment. We’re dedicated to showing that patients may get the same benefit from less and less radiation.

In the past 2 decades, the evolution and adoption of photon IMRT and proton therapy has allowed radiation plans to successfully spare surrounding tissue while improving our targeting. This evolution is coupled with technological and imaging advances that allow us to delivery of doses to certain tumors via SABR/SBRT in one to five total fractions.

A prime example: Treatment to eradicate lung or gastrointestinal tumors, which used to span up to 6 weeks, can now potentially be delivered in as little as 1 week.

For other common cancers, hypofractionation – slightly higher radiation doses per fraction at fewer total fractions overall – has revolutionized patient care, providing less radiation without impacting survival or increasing treatment toxicity.

Take breast cancer care: 50 years ago, virtually all patients with breast cancer received a mastectomy and lymph node dissections. Today, surgical techniques for lumpectomy paired with radiation therapy to the whole breast now allows us to preserve disease-free survival for those who elected to keep their breasts.

Over the past 20 years, the standards of care have shifted from 6-7 weeks of treatment to 3-4 weeks using a hypofractionated model that involves daily whole-breast radiation. The most recent clinical trials have shown that whole-breast radiation can be delivered safely and effectively for select women in as few as five fractions with either whole or partial breast targeting. Additional research driven by the idea of “right sizing” radiation treatment has even shown that certain women may not need radiation at all.

This evolution in radiation therapy illustrates how our subspecialty is constantly working to improve survival and patient well-being, form deep connections with our patients, and push the boundaries of medical innovations.

We are proud to be radiation oncologists and happy to share more. Want to know more about what goes on in the basement? Come on down, we’re happy to show you around.

Dr. Giap is a resident in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Chino is an assistant attending in the department of radiation oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Neither reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

As a field, radiation oncology is perhaps one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Sometimes, even our own colleagues don’t know where our department exists in the hospital or exactly what we do.

As two radiation oncologists who are, in fact, the children of radiation oncologists, we will admit that it’s possible we are a tiny bit biased. We cannot lie, though: Our field is a hidden gem.

What is well known is that radiation oncologists have a symbiotic relationship with our treatment technology. The evolution of treatment machines and radiation precision allows us to deliver patient-tailored treatment down to the millimeter. What may get lost in the discussions of isodose lines and penumbra, however, is that we’ve also got cutting-edge research and personalized patient care within a specialized team in the depths of the hospital.

Because the inner workings of what happens to patients as they come in and out of our office remains a mystery, we hope to use this space to clarify the top five things most physicians don’t know about radiation oncology.
 

1. Nobody knows what goes on in the basement.

Misconceptions about our subspecialty are common, even among other oncologists. A frequent misconception is that a radiation oncologist’s involvement in patient care is limited, and radiation is delivered in a standardized manner. This essentially renders radiation oncologists technicians of expensive machines.

In reality however, radiation oncologists touch every aspect of a patient’s care, and customized radiation therapy may be indicated for virtually every cancer site in both curative and palliative settings. We strive to deliver precision medicine and practice truly patient-centered care.

To cure cancer, radiation may be used in the neoadjuvant (prior to local surgical resection), definitive (as the primary local therapy), and adjuvant (postsurgical) setting. In palliative cases, radiation can be used to treat areas of metastatic spread as well as primary unresectable tumors to alleviate obstruction and/or bleeding symptoms. Referral to radiation oncology, therefore, can be appropriate at many different points of time on the continuum of cancer care.

For many treating radiation oncologists, the close personal connections that we form with our patients is one of the primary reasons we went into this field. Not only are we making patient-centered clinical decisions during every step of the treatment plan evaluation and optimization but we also see our patients weekly for clinical visits and then ongoing in visits that may span many years of survivorship.

Our deep commitment to addressing patient needs as they are receiving treatment and responsibility for late radiation effects is absolutely an integral part of our training and lifelong practice.
 

2. We get down in the details.

The workflow from consultation to radiation delivery can be confusing for anyone outside our specialized field.

Once seen in consult and considered a good candidate for radiation, patients will enter the essential next step: the treatment planning imaging – or “simulation.”

The simulation scan – mostly CT, although occasionally fused MRI or PET – involves a separate appointment and another hour or so of arranging and scanning patients in the exact position that they will be treated. Given the precision of modern radiation, the simulation often includes making a customized mold so patients have minimal movement during treatment. These simulation images allow the radiation oncology team to create a treatment plan that is customized to each patient and precisely reproducible during their course of radiation treatments – what’s known as fractions.

Creating a treatment plan involves a radiation oncologist literally drawing – or contouring – on pictures of the patient’s internal anatomy in three dimensions. Radiation oncologists contour exactly where the cancer is – or where it was if the treatment is given postoperatively – and identify the surrounding organs so that the doses can be preferentially directed to the cancer target and minimize risk to nearby organs. This precision is within millimeters and accounts for microscopic disease, organ motion, and patient setup. Ultimately, we create colorful heat gradient volumes of the anticipated radiation dose delivery and optimize these to reflect our planning priorities.

We use advanced technologies to shape the beams of radiation to treat the tumor and avoid delivering high doses to the neighboring tissues with techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR or SBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery. We can also take advantage of the unique properties of different modalities, such as proton therapy and electron therapy, to achieve these same goals if indicated. Radiation oncologists live for precision medicine in every aspect of their workflow.
 

3. We roll deep.

Radiation oncology is exemplary of “the art of medicine.” We fuse anatomy-based treatment design with advanced technology and orchestrate the daily functions of a large medical team.

But, the treatment plan and delivery would not be possible without the input and care given within a large multi- and intradisciplinary team of oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, radiation therapists, nurses, social workers, and other support staff. Radiation oncologists participate in regular tumor boards with surgeons, medical oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists to optimize interdisciplinary management of complex patients, providing a thoughtful tumor localization and treatment plan, as well as to better understand an individual’s ongoing symptoms and well-being as a whole. Considering all aspects of what a patient may need involves communication with fellow physicians, nurse navigators, and social workers.

Within our own department, treatment plan creation and quality checking or verification can sometimes take over 2 weeks, with detailed input from dosimetrists and medical physicists. The actual treatment delivery involves daily communication with the radiation therapists who are dedicated to each treatment machine – like the linear accelerator – and symptom management with clinic nurses and supportive staff, such as physical therapists and registered dietitians.

This massive team effort is required to get each patient through daily radiation treatments that can last 7 weeks and may require rapid replanning if the tumor shrinks or the patient loses weight.

As part of this team, radiation oncologists are uniquely positioned to quarterback each play and guide the entire game strategy.
 

4. Radiation therapy takes a lot of heat.

Radiation therapy is often blamed for issues unrelated to the treatment. Irradiating the pelvis for prostate cancer, for instance, does not cause a headache or heartburn during or after treatment.

Other than fatigue, associated side effects are localized and related to the total radiation dose and fraction size – how much and how fast – that reaches the surrounding tissues.

Our colleagues often swap stories of the bizarre things radiation therapy has been blamed for, including dental problems in someone receiving vaginal cylinder treatment, heart dysfunction in someone treated for rectal cancer, and hip fracture in someone treated for breast cancer because the radiation “destroyed” their bones. At best, these are humorous stories, but at worst, they can delay diagnosis and treatment of what is truly causing someone’s symptoms.
 

5. We truly believe that less is more.

One of the most fundamental aspects of radiation oncology is our drive to optimize treatment delivery and continually improve patient care – sometimes at our own field’s economic detriment. We’re dedicated to showing that patients may get the same benefit from less and less radiation.

In the past 2 decades, the evolution and adoption of photon IMRT and proton therapy has allowed radiation plans to successfully spare surrounding tissue while improving our targeting. This evolution is coupled with technological and imaging advances that allow us to delivery of doses to certain tumors via SABR/SBRT in one to five total fractions.

A prime example: Treatment to eradicate lung or gastrointestinal tumors, which used to span up to 6 weeks, can now potentially be delivered in as little as 1 week.

For other common cancers, hypofractionation – slightly higher radiation doses per fraction at fewer total fractions overall – has revolutionized patient care, providing less radiation without impacting survival or increasing treatment toxicity.

Take breast cancer care: 50 years ago, virtually all patients with breast cancer received a mastectomy and lymph node dissections. Today, surgical techniques for lumpectomy paired with radiation therapy to the whole breast now allows us to preserve disease-free survival for those who elected to keep their breasts.

Over the past 20 years, the standards of care have shifted from 6-7 weeks of treatment to 3-4 weeks using a hypofractionated model that involves daily whole-breast radiation. The most recent clinical trials have shown that whole-breast radiation can be delivered safely and effectively for select women in as few as five fractions with either whole or partial breast targeting. Additional research driven by the idea of “right sizing” radiation treatment has even shown that certain women may not need radiation at all.

This evolution in radiation therapy illustrates how our subspecialty is constantly working to improve survival and patient well-being, form deep connections with our patients, and push the boundaries of medical innovations.

We are proud to be radiation oncologists and happy to share more. Want to know more about what goes on in the basement? Come on down, we’re happy to show you around.

Dr. Giap is a resident in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Chino is an assistant attending in the department of radiation oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Neither reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Marital status is a relevant risk factor in considering the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer, according to research published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine.

Tumor size remained the largest contributor to overall survival, but marital status was among several other significant factors, such as age, race, gender, treatment style, and pathologic stage, that can provide insight into a patient’s likelihood of overall survival, as it does with several other cancers.

“Married patients had the best prognosis, followed by single patients, and the prognosis of separated patients was the worst,” write Lixiang Zhang and colleagues at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. “We speculate that this might be due to the fact that married patients had better financial conditions and emotional encouragement, while separated patients might be more likely to experience financial difficulties [and] emotional loss.”

The results were not necessarily surprising to Richard M. Peek, Jr., MD, director of the division of gastroenterology and a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who was not involved in the research.

“Marital status is a reflection of support systems, and a strong support system is a prognosticator for increased compliance with medical appointments and medical therapies,” Dr. Peek told this news organization. “It is something to consider when somebody is being treated for gastric cancer, because if they don’t have a strong support system – and marital status can be a proxy for that – then they may need more intensive follow-up and surveillance, for example, than somebody who does not have that support system.”
 

Exploring the marital status–cancer survival connection

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths across the world, causing 780,000 deaths in 2018, the authors note. Yet it’s difficult to accurately predict the prognosis in patients who undergo treatment for early stage gastric cancer. Previous research has found marital status to be associated with survival in prostate, cervical, and rectal cancers.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare Cancer Center, Utah, told this news organization that the connection between marital status and cancer outcomes has been described previously, including in an even larger analysis using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2013. That study found that “unmarried patients are at significantly higher risk of presentation with metastatic cancer, undertreatment, and death resulting from their cancer.”

In this study, the researchers compared marital status and survival rates among 3,647 patients with early-stage gastric cancer, using data from the SEER database. The study only included patients with tumors in the lamina propria, mucosa, and submucosa and excluded those with distant metastasis or distant lymph node metastases, a second cancer, no data on chemotherapy received, or unknown survival time.

Because they were using a nomogram and building a new predictive nomogram that would include marital status, the researchers divided the patient population into a training set of 2,719 patients and a testing set of 928 patients. Using overall survival as the primary endpoint, the analysis included the variables of “age at diagnosis, race, gender, tumor location, histology, grade, stage_T and stage_N, surgery in the primary site, lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, radiation, tumor size, insurance, and marital status,” the authors report.

Among the study population, 53.7% were married, 17.3% were widowed, 14% were single and never married, 7.5% were divorced, 1.1% were separated, and the status of 6.4% was unknown. Age at diagnosis, race, gender, histology, tumor grade, stage T, stage N, surgery type, tumor size, and insurance status were all significantly different between the marital status subgroups.

Married patients had the best prognosis, with an average overall survival of 72 months, compared with an average 60 months in widowed persons, the group with the poorest overall survival. Overall survival was higher in married women (76 months) than in married men (69 months). The same pattern held for women (62 months) and men (52 months) who had been widowed.

“It is worthy to note that survival was significantly better in divorced female patients than in divorced male patients,” the authors report. “Survival was better in female patients than in male patients” across all marital groups.
 

What long-term relationships reveal

These findings do not mean that simply getting married changes one’s likelihood of survival, however. Rather, a long-term relationship is revealing about other aspects in a person’s life.

“I think it represents more stability in the supportive relationship that you need to really deal with a serious disease like cancer,” Dr. Peek said.

If a patient does not have a long-term partner, their care team can ask other questions to get a sense of what their support network is like, Dr. Peek added. “We want to know, does anybody else live in the house with them? Do they have adequate transportation? Can they make medical appointments? Do they have somebody who can help with the medical issues that are going to come up? Do they have family in the area?”

Cancer treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach, and having someone other than just the patient around to help bring together the different aspects of care from different care teams can make a difference in how the patient fares, Dr. Peek explained. Patients without a strong support system may need closer follow-up and other accommodations, he said.

Providers “may schedule their clinical appointments closer together if they don’t have a support system, or they may be able to reach out and offer transportation assistance and those kinds of things that somebody living alone may need,” Dr. Peek said. Outside resources may be a higher priority for those who lack a support system at home, he added.

Dr. Peek also noted other factors that may play a role in a patient’s survival that these researchers did not have the data to address, such as socioeconomic status, employment, alcohol use, smoking, and infection with Helicobacter pylori, the strongest known risk factor for gastric cancer.

A potentially relevant limitation of the study is that it probably has some selection bias, because the patients who were included probably had the means to have received an earlier diagnosis, said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the research.

“Furthermore, just in terms of the group sizes, the baseline characteristics section makes it clear that the preponderance of patients were married, lending that group more statistical weight,” Dr. Lewis said.

“Of the seven attributes in the nomogram, the impact of the marital status seems comparatively meager relative to conventional clinicopathology risk factors like T stage,” he added.

“All in all, I think this study reinforces our awareness that socioeconomic status and social determinants of health play a huge role in cancer outcomes, but it’s not entirely clear that’s modifiable just by getting married,” Dr. Lewis said. “There is a saying in oncology that ‘expensive liquor causes less cancer than cheap liquor,’ which is not negating the carcinogenicity of alcohol but rather identifying different outcomes by socioeconomic status.”

The research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Peek reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lewis reports receiving speaking fees for AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo and having done educational videos for Astellas.

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

Marital status is a relevant risk factor in considering the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer, according to research published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine.

Tumor size remained the largest contributor to overall survival, but marital status was among several other significant factors, such as age, race, gender, treatment style, and pathologic stage, that can provide insight into a patient’s likelihood of overall survival, as it does with several other cancers.

“Married patients had the best prognosis, followed by single patients, and the prognosis of separated patients was the worst,” write Lixiang Zhang and colleagues at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. “We speculate that this might be due to the fact that married patients had better financial conditions and emotional encouragement, while separated patients might be more likely to experience financial difficulties [and] emotional loss.”

The results were not necessarily surprising to Richard M. Peek, Jr., MD, director of the division of gastroenterology and a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who was not involved in the research.

“Marital status is a reflection of support systems, and a strong support system is a prognosticator for increased compliance with medical appointments and medical therapies,” Dr. Peek told this news organization. “It is something to consider when somebody is being treated for gastric cancer, because if they don’t have a strong support system – and marital status can be a proxy for that – then they may need more intensive follow-up and surveillance, for example, than somebody who does not have that support system.”
 

Exploring the marital status–cancer survival connection

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths across the world, causing 780,000 deaths in 2018, the authors note. Yet it’s difficult to accurately predict the prognosis in patients who undergo treatment for early stage gastric cancer. Previous research has found marital status to be associated with survival in prostate, cervical, and rectal cancers.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare Cancer Center, Utah, told this news organization that the connection between marital status and cancer outcomes has been described previously, including in an even larger analysis using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2013. That study found that “unmarried patients are at significantly higher risk of presentation with metastatic cancer, undertreatment, and death resulting from their cancer.”

In this study, the researchers compared marital status and survival rates among 3,647 patients with early-stage gastric cancer, using data from the SEER database. The study only included patients with tumors in the lamina propria, mucosa, and submucosa and excluded those with distant metastasis or distant lymph node metastases, a second cancer, no data on chemotherapy received, or unknown survival time.

Because they were using a nomogram and building a new predictive nomogram that would include marital status, the researchers divided the patient population into a training set of 2,719 patients and a testing set of 928 patients. Using overall survival as the primary endpoint, the analysis included the variables of “age at diagnosis, race, gender, tumor location, histology, grade, stage_T and stage_N, surgery in the primary site, lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, radiation, tumor size, insurance, and marital status,” the authors report.

Among the study population, 53.7% were married, 17.3% were widowed, 14% were single and never married, 7.5% were divorced, 1.1% were separated, and the status of 6.4% was unknown. Age at diagnosis, race, gender, histology, tumor grade, stage T, stage N, surgery type, tumor size, and insurance status were all significantly different between the marital status subgroups.

Married patients had the best prognosis, with an average overall survival of 72 months, compared with an average 60 months in widowed persons, the group with the poorest overall survival. Overall survival was higher in married women (76 months) than in married men (69 months). The same pattern held for women (62 months) and men (52 months) who had been widowed.

“It is worthy to note that survival was significantly better in divorced female patients than in divorced male patients,” the authors report. “Survival was better in female patients than in male patients” across all marital groups.
 

What long-term relationships reveal

These findings do not mean that simply getting married changes one’s likelihood of survival, however. Rather, a long-term relationship is revealing about other aspects in a person’s life.

“I think it represents more stability in the supportive relationship that you need to really deal with a serious disease like cancer,” Dr. Peek said.

If a patient does not have a long-term partner, their care team can ask other questions to get a sense of what their support network is like, Dr. Peek added. “We want to know, does anybody else live in the house with them? Do they have adequate transportation? Can they make medical appointments? Do they have somebody who can help with the medical issues that are going to come up? Do they have family in the area?”

Cancer treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach, and having someone other than just the patient around to help bring together the different aspects of care from different care teams can make a difference in how the patient fares, Dr. Peek explained. Patients without a strong support system may need closer follow-up and other accommodations, he said.

Providers “may schedule their clinical appointments closer together if they don’t have a support system, or they may be able to reach out and offer transportation assistance and those kinds of things that somebody living alone may need,” Dr. Peek said. Outside resources may be a higher priority for those who lack a support system at home, he added.

Dr. Peek also noted other factors that may play a role in a patient’s survival that these researchers did not have the data to address, such as socioeconomic status, employment, alcohol use, smoking, and infection with Helicobacter pylori, the strongest known risk factor for gastric cancer.

A potentially relevant limitation of the study is that it probably has some selection bias, because the patients who were included probably had the means to have received an earlier diagnosis, said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the research.

“Furthermore, just in terms of the group sizes, the baseline characteristics section makes it clear that the preponderance of patients were married, lending that group more statistical weight,” Dr. Lewis said.

“Of the seven attributes in the nomogram, the impact of the marital status seems comparatively meager relative to conventional clinicopathology risk factors like T stage,” he added.

“All in all, I think this study reinforces our awareness that socioeconomic status and social determinants of health play a huge role in cancer outcomes, but it’s not entirely clear that’s modifiable just by getting married,” Dr. Lewis said. “There is a saying in oncology that ‘expensive liquor causes less cancer than cheap liquor,’ which is not negating the carcinogenicity of alcohol but rather identifying different outcomes by socioeconomic status.”

The research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Peek reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lewis reports receiving speaking fees for AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo and having done educational videos for Astellas.

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

Marital status is a relevant risk factor in considering the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer, according to research published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine.

Tumor size remained the largest contributor to overall survival, but marital status was among several other significant factors, such as age, race, gender, treatment style, and pathologic stage, that can provide insight into a patient’s likelihood of overall survival, as it does with several other cancers.

“Married patients had the best prognosis, followed by single patients, and the prognosis of separated patients was the worst,” write Lixiang Zhang and colleagues at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. “We speculate that this might be due to the fact that married patients had better financial conditions and emotional encouragement, while separated patients might be more likely to experience financial difficulties [and] emotional loss.”

The results were not necessarily surprising to Richard M. Peek, Jr., MD, director of the division of gastroenterology and a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who was not involved in the research.

“Marital status is a reflection of support systems, and a strong support system is a prognosticator for increased compliance with medical appointments and medical therapies,” Dr. Peek told this news organization. “It is something to consider when somebody is being treated for gastric cancer, because if they don’t have a strong support system – and marital status can be a proxy for that – then they may need more intensive follow-up and surveillance, for example, than somebody who does not have that support system.”
 

Exploring the marital status–cancer survival connection

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths across the world, causing 780,000 deaths in 2018, the authors note. Yet it’s difficult to accurately predict the prognosis in patients who undergo treatment for early stage gastric cancer. Previous research has found marital status to be associated with survival in prostate, cervical, and rectal cancers.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare Cancer Center, Utah, told this news organization that the connection between marital status and cancer outcomes has been described previously, including in an even larger analysis using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2013. That study found that “unmarried patients are at significantly higher risk of presentation with metastatic cancer, undertreatment, and death resulting from their cancer.”

In this study, the researchers compared marital status and survival rates among 3,647 patients with early-stage gastric cancer, using data from the SEER database. The study only included patients with tumors in the lamina propria, mucosa, and submucosa and excluded those with distant metastasis or distant lymph node metastases, a second cancer, no data on chemotherapy received, or unknown survival time.

Because they were using a nomogram and building a new predictive nomogram that would include marital status, the researchers divided the patient population into a training set of 2,719 patients and a testing set of 928 patients. Using overall survival as the primary endpoint, the analysis included the variables of “age at diagnosis, race, gender, tumor location, histology, grade, stage_T and stage_N, surgery in the primary site, lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, radiation, tumor size, insurance, and marital status,” the authors report.

Among the study population, 53.7% were married, 17.3% were widowed, 14% were single and never married, 7.5% were divorced, 1.1% were separated, and the status of 6.4% was unknown. Age at diagnosis, race, gender, histology, tumor grade, stage T, stage N, surgery type, tumor size, and insurance status were all significantly different between the marital status subgroups.

Married patients had the best prognosis, with an average overall survival of 72 months, compared with an average 60 months in widowed persons, the group with the poorest overall survival. Overall survival was higher in married women (76 months) than in married men (69 months). The same pattern held for women (62 months) and men (52 months) who had been widowed.

“It is worthy to note that survival was significantly better in divorced female patients than in divorced male patients,” the authors report. “Survival was better in female patients than in male patients” across all marital groups.
 

What long-term relationships reveal

These findings do not mean that simply getting married changes one’s likelihood of survival, however. Rather, a long-term relationship is revealing about other aspects in a person’s life.

“I think it represents more stability in the supportive relationship that you need to really deal with a serious disease like cancer,” Dr. Peek said.

If a patient does not have a long-term partner, their care team can ask other questions to get a sense of what their support network is like, Dr. Peek added. “We want to know, does anybody else live in the house with them? Do they have adequate transportation? Can they make medical appointments? Do they have somebody who can help with the medical issues that are going to come up? Do they have family in the area?”

Cancer treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach, and having someone other than just the patient around to help bring together the different aspects of care from different care teams can make a difference in how the patient fares, Dr. Peek explained. Patients without a strong support system may need closer follow-up and other accommodations, he said.

Providers “may schedule their clinical appointments closer together if they don’t have a support system, or they may be able to reach out and offer transportation assistance and those kinds of things that somebody living alone may need,” Dr. Peek said. Outside resources may be a higher priority for those who lack a support system at home, he added.

Dr. Peek also noted other factors that may play a role in a patient’s survival that these researchers did not have the data to address, such as socioeconomic status, employment, alcohol use, smoking, and infection with Helicobacter pylori, the strongest known risk factor for gastric cancer.

A potentially relevant limitation of the study is that it probably has some selection bias, because the patients who were included probably had the means to have received an earlier diagnosis, said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the research.

“Furthermore, just in terms of the group sizes, the baseline characteristics section makes it clear that the preponderance of patients were married, lending that group more statistical weight,” Dr. Lewis said.

“Of the seven attributes in the nomogram, the impact of the marital status seems comparatively meager relative to conventional clinicopathology risk factors like T stage,” he added.

“All in all, I think this study reinforces our awareness that socioeconomic status and social determinants of health play a huge role in cancer outcomes, but it’s not entirely clear that’s modifiable just by getting married,” Dr. Lewis said. “There is a saying in oncology that ‘expensive liquor causes less cancer than cheap liquor,’ which is not negating the carcinogenicity of alcohol but rather identifying different outcomes by socioeconomic status.”

The research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Peek reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lewis reports receiving speaking fees for AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo and having done educational videos for Astellas.

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

Just before he took a call from a reporter asking about the impact of drug shortages in hematology, Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, had spent an hour on the phone overseeing his institution’s response to a hematology drug shortage. The chemotherapy drug fludarabine, used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia, was in short supply.

“There are 5 different manufacturers, but none of them have had drug available over the past 2 weeks,” Dr. Greene said. “We’re trying to chase some emergency supplies to be able to continue treatment for patients who’ve had their treatments initiated and planned.”

Over the past several years, this predicament has become common at hematology clinics across the country. In fact, management of scarce medication resources has become a significant part of Dr. Greene’s workload these days, as critical drugs fail to show up on time or manufacturer supplies run low at his hospital in Memphis.

This shortage of hematology drugs got a new dose of national attention, thanks to a recent episode of CBS News’ “60 Minutes.” Through interviews with physicians and parents of children who suddenly could not get vital medications, the report highlighted the recent shortage of another leukemia drug, vincristine.

“As a cancer mom, we shouldn’t be fighting for our children to get a drug that is needed,” Cyndi Valenta was quoted as saying. She recalled that when the shortage began in 2019, her 13-year-old son, a leukemia patient at Loma Linda (Calif.) University Hospital, felt frightened. Ms. Valenta said she felt a “gut-wrenching feeling of just fear and anger.” They were finally able to get doses of the drug after launching a social media campaign.

Such drug shortages are especially widespread in oncology and hematology, according to a survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide. Published in the May 2022 issue of Oncology Practice, the study showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

The pharmacists surveyed between May 2019 and July 2020 were asked about the three most hard-to-get chemotherapy and supportive care agents. Vincristine topped the list, followed by vinblastine, IVIG, leucovorin, and BCG, as well as difficult-to-obtain ropine, erwinia asparaginase, etoposide, and leuprolide. Several of these drugs are used to treat conditions such as lymphoma and leukemia.

Eighty-two percent of respondents reported shortages of decitabine (IV), often used as part of a cocktail with vinblastine and other drugs to treat Hodgkin lymphoma.

The reasons for drug shortages are varied. The CBS News report declared that “pharmaceutical companies have stopped producing many life-saving generic drugs because they make too little profit,” and it suggested that the federal government isn’t doing enough.

But government action actually might be making a difference. According to the FDA, the number of new drug shortages has fallen dramatically from 250 in 2011 to 41 in 2021, and the number of prevented drug shortages rose from nearly 200 to more than 300 over that same period. Still, the number of ongoing drug shortages has risen from around 40 in 2017 to about 80 in 2021.

Reasons for the paucity of certain drugs are often unclear. In a June 12, 2022 post, for example, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ drug shortage database noted that the chemotherapy drug fludarabine was in short supply and provided details about when some of the 5 manufacturers expected to have it available. (This is the shortage that Dr. Greene was trying to manage.) But 4 of the 5 manufacturers “did not provide a reason,” and the fifth blamed manufacturing delays.

“There’s a lot of closely held trade secrets that hinder the ability to share good information,” said Dr. Greene. To make things more complicated, shipping times are often unreliable. “The product doesn’t show up today, we place another order. Sometimes it will show up tomorrow, sometimes it doesn’t,” he said. “If you’re not tracking it carefully, you deplete your own supply.”

Patients’ families have grown used to dealing with drug shortages, and “they’re less quick to blame personnel at our institution.”

How can hematologists cope with this issue? “The best thing in the immediate term is to advocate for their hospital to have a pharmacist dedicated to shortage monitoring and taking proactive steps to obviate shortages,” hematologist/oncologist Andrew Hantel, MD, an instructor at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“We have ongoing communications with other large cancer centers and the FDA to recognize shortages early and develop plans to make sure we stay ahead of them,” Dr. Hantel said. “Most often this involves assessing supply, use rates, alternative manufacturers, and additional measures the Food and Drug Administration can take (for example, importation), and occasionally working with clinical teams to see if other medications are feasible alternatives.”

If a drug is unavailable, it can also be helpful to discuss alternative approaches. “We did not have any frank shortages of vincristine,” Dr. Hantel said, “but we did focus on conservation measures and considered different ethically appropriate ways to distribute vincristine if there was a point at which we did not have enough for everyone who needed it.”

If a drug is in short supply, options can include delaying treatment, giving an alternative, or providing the rest of the regimen without the scarce drug, he said. In a 2021 report in The Lancet Hematology, Dr. Hantel and his colleagues offered “model solutions for ethical allocation during cancer medicine shortages.”

The authors of the May 2022 drug-shortage report highlighted an alternative regimen in hematology. They noted that manufacturing delays have limited the supply of dacarbazine, used for Hodgkin lymphoma. Due to the current shortages, they wrote, clinicians are considering the use of escalated bleomycin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone, replacing dacarbazine with procarbazine and using the doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone regimen, or replacing dacarbazine with cyclophosphamide.

Dr. Greene emphasized the importance of tracking the news and the drug shortage websites run by the FDA and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

It’s also crucial to have a good relationship with your wholesaler, he added, and to communicate about these problems within your facility. At his hospital, the pharmaceutical staff holds a multi-disciplinary meeting at least weekly to discuss the supply of medications. As he put it, “it’s a challenging environment.”

Dr. Greene and Dr. Hantel reported no relevant disclosures.

Just before he took a call from a reporter asking about the impact of drug shortages in hematology, Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, had spent an hour on the phone overseeing his institution’s response to a hematology drug shortage. The chemotherapy drug fludarabine, used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia, was in short supply.

“There are 5 different manufacturers, but none of them have had drug available over the past 2 weeks,” Dr. Greene said. “We’re trying to chase some emergency supplies to be able to continue treatment for patients who’ve had their treatments initiated and planned.”

Over the past several years, this predicament has become common at hematology clinics across the country. In fact, management of scarce medication resources has become a significant part of Dr. Greene’s workload these days, as critical drugs fail to show up on time or manufacturer supplies run low at his hospital in Memphis.

This shortage of hematology drugs got a new dose of national attention, thanks to a recent episode of CBS News’ “60 Minutes.” Through interviews with physicians and parents of children who suddenly could not get vital medications, the report highlighted the recent shortage of another leukemia drug, vincristine.

“As a cancer mom, we shouldn’t be fighting for our children to get a drug that is needed,” Cyndi Valenta was quoted as saying. She recalled that when the shortage began in 2019, her 13-year-old son, a leukemia patient at Loma Linda (Calif.) University Hospital, felt frightened. Ms. Valenta said she felt a “gut-wrenching feeling of just fear and anger.” They were finally able to get doses of the drug after launching a social media campaign.

Such drug shortages are especially widespread in oncology and hematology, according to a survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide. Published in the May 2022 issue of Oncology Practice, the study showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

The pharmacists surveyed between May 2019 and July 2020 were asked about the three most hard-to-get chemotherapy and supportive care agents. Vincristine topped the list, followed by vinblastine, IVIG, leucovorin, and BCG, as well as difficult-to-obtain ropine, erwinia asparaginase, etoposide, and leuprolide. Several of these drugs are used to treat conditions such as lymphoma and leukemia.

Eighty-two percent of respondents reported shortages of decitabine (IV), often used as part of a cocktail with vinblastine and other drugs to treat Hodgkin lymphoma.

The reasons for drug shortages are varied. The CBS News report declared that “pharmaceutical companies have stopped producing many life-saving generic drugs because they make too little profit,” and it suggested that the federal government isn’t doing enough.

But government action actually might be making a difference. According to the FDA, the number of new drug shortages has fallen dramatically from 250 in 2011 to 41 in 2021, and the number of prevented drug shortages rose from nearly 200 to more than 300 over that same period. Still, the number of ongoing drug shortages has risen from around 40 in 2017 to about 80 in 2021.

Reasons for the paucity of certain drugs are often unclear. In a June 12, 2022 post, for example, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ drug shortage database noted that the chemotherapy drug fludarabine was in short supply and provided details about when some of the 5 manufacturers expected to have it available. (This is the shortage that Dr. Greene was trying to manage.) But 4 of the 5 manufacturers “did not provide a reason,” and the fifth blamed manufacturing delays.

“There’s a lot of closely held trade secrets that hinder the ability to share good information,” said Dr. Greene. To make things more complicated, shipping times are often unreliable. “The product doesn’t show up today, we place another order. Sometimes it will show up tomorrow, sometimes it doesn’t,” he said. “If you’re not tracking it carefully, you deplete your own supply.”

Patients’ families have grown used to dealing with drug shortages, and “they’re less quick to blame personnel at our institution.”

How can hematologists cope with this issue? “The best thing in the immediate term is to advocate for their hospital to have a pharmacist dedicated to shortage monitoring and taking proactive steps to obviate shortages,” hematologist/oncologist Andrew Hantel, MD, an instructor at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“We have ongoing communications with other large cancer centers and the FDA to recognize shortages early and develop plans to make sure we stay ahead of them,” Dr. Hantel said. “Most often this involves assessing supply, use rates, alternative manufacturers, and additional measures the Food and Drug Administration can take (for example, importation), and occasionally working with clinical teams to see if other medications are feasible alternatives.”

If a drug is unavailable, it can also be helpful to discuss alternative approaches. “We did not have any frank shortages of vincristine,” Dr. Hantel said, “but we did focus on conservation measures and considered different ethically appropriate ways to distribute vincristine if there was a point at which we did not have enough for everyone who needed it.”

If a drug is in short supply, options can include delaying treatment, giving an alternative, or providing the rest of the regimen without the scarce drug, he said. In a 2021 report in The Lancet Hematology, Dr. Hantel and his colleagues offered “model solutions for ethical allocation during cancer medicine shortages.”

The authors of the May 2022 drug-shortage report highlighted an alternative regimen in hematology. They noted that manufacturing delays have limited the supply of dacarbazine, used for Hodgkin lymphoma. Due to the current shortages, they wrote, clinicians are considering the use of escalated bleomycin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone, replacing dacarbazine with procarbazine and using the doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone regimen, or replacing dacarbazine with cyclophosphamide.

Dr. Greene emphasized the importance of tracking the news and the drug shortage websites run by the FDA and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

It’s also crucial to have a good relationship with your wholesaler, he added, and to communicate about these problems within your facility. At his hospital, the pharmaceutical staff holds a multi-disciplinary meeting at least weekly to discuss the supply of medications. As he put it, “it’s a challenging environment.”

Dr. Greene and Dr. Hantel reported no relevant disclosures.

Just before he took a call from a reporter asking about the impact of drug shortages in hematology, Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, had spent an hour on the phone overseeing his institution’s response to a hematology drug shortage. The chemotherapy drug fludarabine, used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia, was in short supply.

“There are 5 different manufacturers, but none of them have had drug available over the past 2 weeks,” Dr. Greene said. “We’re trying to chase some emergency supplies to be able to continue treatment for patients who’ve had their treatments initiated and planned.”

Over the past several years, this predicament has become common at hematology clinics across the country. In fact, management of scarce medication resources has become a significant part of Dr. Greene’s workload these days, as critical drugs fail to show up on time or manufacturer supplies run low at his hospital in Memphis.

This shortage of hematology drugs got a new dose of national attention, thanks to a recent episode of CBS News’ “60 Minutes.” Through interviews with physicians and parents of children who suddenly could not get vital medications, the report highlighted the recent shortage of another leukemia drug, vincristine.

“As a cancer mom, we shouldn’t be fighting for our children to get a drug that is needed,” Cyndi Valenta was quoted as saying. She recalled that when the shortage began in 2019, her 13-year-old son, a leukemia patient at Loma Linda (Calif.) University Hospital, felt frightened. Ms. Valenta said she felt a “gut-wrenching feeling of just fear and anger.” They were finally able to get doses of the drug after launching a social media campaign.

Such drug shortages are especially widespread in oncology and hematology, according to a survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide. Published in the May 2022 issue of Oncology Practice, the study showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

The pharmacists surveyed between May 2019 and July 2020 were asked about the three most hard-to-get chemotherapy and supportive care agents. Vincristine topped the list, followed by vinblastine, IVIG, leucovorin, and BCG, as well as difficult-to-obtain ropine, erwinia asparaginase, etoposide, and leuprolide. Several of these drugs are used to treat conditions such as lymphoma and leukemia.

Eighty-two percent of respondents reported shortages of decitabine (IV), often used as part of a cocktail with vinblastine and other drugs to treat Hodgkin lymphoma.

The reasons for drug shortages are varied. The CBS News report declared that “pharmaceutical companies have stopped producing many life-saving generic drugs because they make too little profit,” and it suggested that the federal government isn’t doing enough.

But government action actually might be making a difference. According to the FDA, the number of new drug shortages has fallen dramatically from 250 in 2011 to 41 in 2021, and the number of prevented drug shortages rose from nearly 200 to more than 300 over that same period. Still, the number of ongoing drug shortages has risen from around 40 in 2017 to about 80 in 2021.

Reasons for the paucity of certain drugs are often unclear. In a June 12, 2022 post, for example, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ drug shortage database noted that the chemotherapy drug fludarabine was in short supply and provided details about when some of the 5 manufacturers expected to have it available. (This is the shortage that Dr. Greene was trying to manage.) But 4 of the 5 manufacturers “did not provide a reason,” and the fifth blamed manufacturing delays.

“There’s a lot of closely held trade secrets that hinder the ability to share good information,” said Dr. Greene. To make things more complicated, shipping times are often unreliable. “The product doesn’t show up today, we place another order. Sometimes it will show up tomorrow, sometimes it doesn’t,” he said. “If you’re not tracking it carefully, you deplete your own supply.”

Patients’ families have grown used to dealing with drug shortages, and “they’re less quick to blame personnel at our institution.”

How can hematologists cope with this issue? “The best thing in the immediate term is to advocate for their hospital to have a pharmacist dedicated to shortage monitoring and taking proactive steps to obviate shortages,” hematologist/oncologist Andrew Hantel, MD, an instructor at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“We have ongoing communications with other large cancer centers and the FDA to recognize shortages early and develop plans to make sure we stay ahead of them,” Dr. Hantel said. “Most often this involves assessing supply, use rates, alternative manufacturers, and additional measures the Food and Drug Administration can take (for example, importation), and occasionally working with clinical teams to see if other medications are feasible alternatives.”

If a drug is unavailable, it can also be helpful to discuss alternative approaches. “We did not have any frank shortages of vincristine,” Dr. Hantel said, “but we did focus on conservation measures and considered different ethically appropriate ways to distribute vincristine if there was a point at which we did not have enough for everyone who needed it.”

If a drug is in short supply, options can include delaying treatment, giving an alternative, or providing the rest of the regimen without the scarce drug, he said. In a 2021 report in The Lancet Hematology, Dr. Hantel and his colleagues offered “model solutions for ethical allocation during cancer medicine shortages.”

The authors of the May 2022 drug-shortage report highlighted an alternative regimen in hematology. They noted that manufacturing delays have limited the supply of dacarbazine, used for Hodgkin lymphoma. Due to the current shortages, they wrote, clinicians are considering the use of escalated bleomycin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone, replacing dacarbazine with procarbazine and using the doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone regimen, or replacing dacarbazine with cyclophosphamide.

Dr. Greene emphasized the importance of tracking the news and the drug shortage websites run by the FDA and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

It’s also crucial to have a good relationship with your wholesaler, he added, and to communicate about these problems within your facility. At his hospital, the pharmaceutical staff holds a multi-disciplinary meeting at least weekly to discuss the supply of medications. As he put it, “it’s a challenging environment.”

Dr. Greene and Dr. Hantel reported no relevant disclosures.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

Young adults aged 15-34 years derive no significant health benefits from alcohol consumption, but moderate drinking may benefit the over-40 crowd, according to a new analysis.

The health risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are complex and remain a hot topic of debate. The data suggest that small amounts of alcohol may reduce the risk of certain health outcomes over time, but increase the risk of others, wrote Dana Bryazka, MS, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, in a paper published in the Lancet.

“The amount of alcohol that minimizes health loss is likely to depend on the distribution of underlying causes of disease burden in a given population. Since this distribution varies widely by geography, age, sex, and time, the level of alcohol consumption associated with the lowest risk to health would depend on the age structure and disease composition of that population,” the researchers wrote.

“We estimate that 1.78 million people worldwide died due to alcohol use in 2020,” Ms. Bryazka said in an interview. “It is important that alcohol consumption guidelines and policies are updated to minimize this harm, particularly in the populations at greatest risk,” she said.  

“Existing alcohol consumption guidelines frequently vary by sex, with higher consumption thresholds set for males compared to females. Interestingly, with the currently available data we do not see evidence that risk of alcohol use varies by sex,” she noted.
 

Methods and results

In the study, the researchers conducted a systematic analysis of burden-weighted dose-response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes. They used disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for the years 1990-2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories. The data were analyzed by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15-95 years and older. The researchers estimated the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and nondrinker equivalent (NDE), meaning the amount of alcohol at which the health risk equals that of a nondrinker.

One standard drink was defined as 10 g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of red wine (100 mL or 3.4 fluid ounces) at 13% alcohol by volume, a can or bottle of beer (375 mL or 12 fluid ounces) at 3.5% alcohol by volume, or a shot of whiskey or other spirits (30 mL or 1.0 fluid ounces) at 40% alcohol by volume.

Overall, the TMREL was low regardless of age, sex, time, or geography, and varied from 0 to 1.87 standard drinks per day. However, it was lowest for males aged 15-39 years (0.136 drinks per day) and only slightly higher for females aged 15-39 (0.273), representing 1-2 tenths of a standard drink.

For adults aged 40 and older without any underlying health conditions, drinking a small amount of alcohol may provide some benefits, such as reducing the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the researchers noted. In general, for individuals aged 40-64 years, TMRELs ranged from about half a standard drink per day (0.527 drinks for males and 0.562 standard drinks per day for females) to almost two standard drinks (1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females). For those older than 65 years, the TMRELs represented just over 3 standard drinks per day (3.19 for males and 3.51 for females). For individuals aged 40 years and older, the distribution of disease burden varied by region, but was J-shaped across all regions, the researchers noted.

The researchers also found that those individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol were most likely to be aged 15-39 (59.1%) and male (76.9%).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and lack of data on drinking patterns, such as binge drinking, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the lack of data reflecting patterns of alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, and exclusion of outcomes often associated with alcohol use, such as depression, anxiety, and dementia, that might reduce estimates of TMREL and NDE.

However, the results add to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and health, the researchers said.

“The findings of this study support the development of tailored guidelines and recommendations on alcohol consumption by age and across regions and highlight that existing low consumption thresholds are too high for younger populations in all regions,” they concluded.
 

Consider individual factors when counseling patients

The takeaway message for primary care is that alcohol consumed in moderation can reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, Ms. Bryazka noted. “However, it also increases the risk of many cancers, intentional and unintentional injuries, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis,” she said. “Of these health outcomes, young people are most likely to experience injuries, and as a result, we find that there are significant health risks associated with consuming alcohol for young people. Among older individuals, the relative proportions of these outcomes vary by geography, and so do the risks associated with consuming alcohol,” she explained.

“Importantly, our analysis was conducted at the population level; when evaluating risk at the individual level, it is also important to consider other factors such as the presence of comorbidities and interactions between alcohol and medications,” she emphasized.
 

Health and alcohol interaction is complicated

“These findings seemingly contradict a previous [Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study] estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasized that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations,” wrote Robyn Burton, PhD, and Nick Sheron, MD, both of King’s College, London, in an accompanying comment.

However, the novel methods of weighting relative risk curves according to levels of underlying disease drive the difference in results, along with disaggregated estimates by age, sex, and region, they said.

“Across most geographical regions in this latest analysis, injuries accounted for most alcohol-related harm in younger age groups. This led to a minimum risk level of zero, or very close to zero, among individuals aged 15-39 years across all geographical regions,” which is lower than the level for older adults because of the shift in alcohol-related disease burden towards cardiovascular disease and cancers, they said. “This highlights the need to consider existing rates of disease in a population when trying to determine the total harm posed by alcohol,” the commentators wrote.

In an additional commentary, Tony Rao, MD, a visiting clinical research fellow in psychiatry at King’s College, London, noted that “the elephant in the room with this study is the interpretation of risk based on outcomes for cardiovascular disease – particularly in older people. We know that any purported health benefits from alcohol on the heart and circulation are balanced out by the increased risk from other conditions such as cancer, liver disease, and mental disorders such as depression and dementia,” Dr. Rao said. “If we are to simply draw the conclusion that older people should continue or start drinking small amounts because it protects against diseases affecting heart and circulation – which still remains controversial – other lifestyle changes or the use of drugs targeted at individual cardiovascular disorders seem like a less harmful way of improving health and wellbeing.”

Data can guide clinical practice

No previous study has examined the effect of the theoretical minimum risk of alcohol consumption by geography, age, sex, and time in the context of background disease rates, said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

“This study enabled the researchers to quantify the proportion of the population that consumed alcohol in amounts that exceeded the thresholds by location, age, sex, and year, and this can serve as a guide in our efforts to target the control of alcohol intake by individuals,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc. He also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The first take-home message for clinicians is that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have deleterious effects on the health of patients, and patients should be advised accordingly based on the prevalence of diseases in that community and geographic area, Dr. Deep said. “Secondly, clinicians should also consider the risk of alcohol consumption on all forms of health impacts in a given population rather than just focusing on alcohol-related health conditions,” he added.

“This study provides us with the data to tailor our efforts in educating the clinicians and the public about the relationship between alcohol consumption and disease outcomes based on the observed disease rates in each population,” Dr. Deep explained. “The data should provide another reason for physicians to advise their younger patients, especially the younger males, to avoid or minimize alcohol use,” he said. The data also can help clinicians formulate public health messaging and community education to reduce harmful alcohol use, he added.

As for additional research, Dr. Deep said he would like to see data on the difference in the health-related effects of alcohol in binge-drinkers vs. those who regularly consume alcohol on a daily basis. “It would probably also be helpful to figure out what type of alcohol is being studied and the quality of the alcohol,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Bryazka and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Burton disclosed serving as a consultant to the World Health Organization European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Dr. Sheron had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Young adults aged 15-34 years derive no significant health benefits from alcohol consumption, but moderate drinking may benefit the over-40 crowd, according to a new analysis.

The health risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are complex and remain a hot topic of debate. The data suggest that small amounts of alcohol may reduce the risk of certain health outcomes over time, but increase the risk of others, wrote Dana Bryazka, MS, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, in a paper published in the Lancet.

“The amount of alcohol that minimizes health loss is likely to depend on the distribution of underlying causes of disease burden in a given population. Since this distribution varies widely by geography, age, sex, and time, the level of alcohol consumption associated with the lowest risk to health would depend on the age structure and disease composition of that population,” the researchers wrote.

“We estimate that 1.78 million people worldwide died due to alcohol use in 2020,” Ms. Bryazka said in an interview. “It is important that alcohol consumption guidelines and policies are updated to minimize this harm, particularly in the populations at greatest risk,” she said.  

“Existing alcohol consumption guidelines frequently vary by sex, with higher consumption thresholds set for males compared to females. Interestingly, with the currently available data we do not see evidence that risk of alcohol use varies by sex,” she noted.
 

Methods and results

In the study, the researchers conducted a systematic analysis of burden-weighted dose-response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes. They used disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for the years 1990-2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories. The data were analyzed by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15-95 years and older. The researchers estimated the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and nondrinker equivalent (NDE), meaning the amount of alcohol at which the health risk equals that of a nondrinker.

One standard drink was defined as 10 g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of red wine (100 mL or 3.4 fluid ounces) at 13% alcohol by volume, a can or bottle of beer (375 mL or 12 fluid ounces) at 3.5% alcohol by volume, or a shot of whiskey or other spirits (30 mL or 1.0 fluid ounces) at 40% alcohol by volume.

Overall, the TMREL was low regardless of age, sex, time, or geography, and varied from 0 to 1.87 standard drinks per day. However, it was lowest for males aged 15-39 years (0.136 drinks per day) and only slightly higher for females aged 15-39 (0.273), representing 1-2 tenths of a standard drink.

For adults aged 40 and older without any underlying health conditions, drinking a small amount of alcohol may provide some benefits, such as reducing the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the researchers noted. In general, for individuals aged 40-64 years, TMRELs ranged from about half a standard drink per day (0.527 drinks for males and 0.562 standard drinks per day for females) to almost two standard drinks (1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females). For those older than 65 years, the TMRELs represented just over 3 standard drinks per day (3.19 for males and 3.51 for females). For individuals aged 40 years and older, the distribution of disease burden varied by region, but was J-shaped across all regions, the researchers noted.

The researchers also found that those individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol were most likely to be aged 15-39 (59.1%) and male (76.9%).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and lack of data on drinking patterns, such as binge drinking, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the lack of data reflecting patterns of alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, and exclusion of outcomes often associated with alcohol use, such as depression, anxiety, and dementia, that might reduce estimates of TMREL and NDE.

However, the results add to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and health, the researchers said.

“The findings of this study support the development of tailored guidelines and recommendations on alcohol consumption by age and across regions and highlight that existing low consumption thresholds are too high for younger populations in all regions,” they concluded.
 

Consider individual factors when counseling patients

The takeaway message for primary care is that alcohol consumed in moderation can reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, Ms. Bryazka noted. “However, it also increases the risk of many cancers, intentional and unintentional injuries, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis,” she said. “Of these health outcomes, young people are most likely to experience injuries, and as a result, we find that there are significant health risks associated with consuming alcohol for young people. Among older individuals, the relative proportions of these outcomes vary by geography, and so do the risks associated with consuming alcohol,” she explained.

“Importantly, our analysis was conducted at the population level; when evaluating risk at the individual level, it is also important to consider other factors such as the presence of comorbidities and interactions between alcohol and medications,” she emphasized.
 

Health and alcohol interaction is complicated

“These findings seemingly contradict a previous [Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study] estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasized that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations,” wrote Robyn Burton, PhD, and Nick Sheron, MD, both of King’s College, London, in an accompanying comment.

However, the novel methods of weighting relative risk curves according to levels of underlying disease drive the difference in results, along with disaggregated estimates by age, sex, and region, they said.

“Across most geographical regions in this latest analysis, injuries accounted for most alcohol-related harm in younger age groups. This led to a minimum risk level of zero, or very close to zero, among individuals aged 15-39 years across all geographical regions,” which is lower than the level for older adults because of the shift in alcohol-related disease burden towards cardiovascular disease and cancers, they said. “This highlights the need to consider existing rates of disease in a population when trying to determine the total harm posed by alcohol,” the commentators wrote.

In an additional commentary, Tony Rao, MD, a visiting clinical research fellow in psychiatry at King’s College, London, noted that “the elephant in the room with this study is the interpretation of risk based on outcomes for cardiovascular disease – particularly in older people. We know that any purported health benefits from alcohol on the heart and circulation are balanced out by the increased risk from other conditions such as cancer, liver disease, and mental disorders such as depression and dementia,” Dr. Rao said. “If we are to simply draw the conclusion that older people should continue or start drinking small amounts because it protects against diseases affecting heart and circulation – which still remains controversial – other lifestyle changes or the use of drugs targeted at individual cardiovascular disorders seem like a less harmful way of improving health and wellbeing.”

Data can guide clinical practice

No previous study has examined the effect of the theoretical minimum risk of alcohol consumption by geography, age, sex, and time in the context of background disease rates, said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

“This study enabled the researchers to quantify the proportion of the population that consumed alcohol in amounts that exceeded the thresholds by location, age, sex, and year, and this can serve as a guide in our efforts to target the control of alcohol intake by individuals,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc. He also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The first take-home message for clinicians is that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have deleterious effects on the health of patients, and patients should be advised accordingly based on the prevalence of diseases in that community and geographic area, Dr. Deep said. “Secondly, clinicians should also consider the risk of alcohol consumption on all forms of health impacts in a given population rather than just focusing on alcohol-related health conditions,” he added.

“This study provides us with the data to tailor our efforts in educating the clinicians and the public about the relationship between alcohol consumption and disease outcomes based on the observed disease rates in each population,” Dr. Deep explained. “The data should provide another reason for physicians to advise their younger patients, especially the younger males, to avoid or minimize alcohol use,” he said. The data also can help clinicians formulate public health messaging and community education to reduce harmful alcohol use, he added.

As for additional research, Dr. Deep said he would like to see data on the difference in the health-related effects of alcohol in binge-drinkers vs. those who regularly consume alcohol on a daily basis. “It would probably also be helpful to figure out what type of alcohol is being studied and the quality of the alcohol,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Bryazka and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Burton disclosed serving as a consultant to the World Health Organization European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Dr. Sheron had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Young adults aged 15-34 years derive no significant health benefits from alcohol consumption, but moderate drinking may benefit the over-40 crowd, according to a new analysis.

The health risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are complex and remain a hot topic of debate. The data suggest that small amounts of alcohol may reduce the risk of certain health outcomes over time, but increase the risk of others, wrote Dana Bryazka, MS, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, in a paper published in the Lancet.

“The amount of alcohol that minimizes health loss is likely to depend on the distribution of underlying causes of disease burden in a given population. Since this distribution varies widely by geography, age, sex, and time, the level of alcohol consumption associated with the lowest risk to health would depend on the age structure and disease composition of that population,” the researchers wrote.

“We estimate that 1.78 million people worldwide died due to alcohol use in 2020,” Ms. Bryazka said in an interview. “It is important that alcohol consumption guidelines and policies are updated to minimize this harm, particularly in the populations at greatest risk,” she said.  

“Existing alcohol consumption guidelines frequently vary by sex, with higher consumption thresholds set for males compared to females. Interestingly, with the currently available data we do not see evidence that risk of alcohol use varies by sex,” she noted.
 

Methods and results

In the study, the researchers conducted a systematic analysis of burden-weighted dose-response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes. They used disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for the years 1990-2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories. The data were analyzed by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15-95 years and older. The researchers estimated the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and nondrinker equivalent (NDE), meaning the amount of alcohol at which the health risk equals that of a nondrinker.

One standard drink was defined as 10 g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of red wine (100 mL or 3.4 fluid ounces) at 13% alcohol by volume, a can or bottle of beer (375 mL or 12 fluid ounces) at 3.5% alcohol by volume, or a shot of whiskey or other spirits (30 mL or 1.0 fluid ounces) at 40% alcohol by volume.

Overall, the TMREL was low regardless of age, sex, time, or geography, and varied from 0 to 1.87 standard drinks per day. However, it was lowest for males aged 15-39 years (0.136 drinks per day) and only slightly higher for females aged 15-39 (0.273), representing 1-2 tenths of a standard drink.

For adults aged 40 and older without any underlying health conditions, drinking a small amount of alcohol may provide some benefits, such as reducing the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the researchers noted. In general, for individuals aged 40-64 years, TMRELs ranged from about half a standard drink per day (0.527 drinks for males and 0.562 standard drinks per day for females) to almost two standard drinks (1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females). For those older than 65 years, the TMRELs represented just over 3 standard drinks per day (3.19 for males and 3.51 for females). For individuals aged 40 years and older, the distribution of disease burden varied by region, but was J-shaped across all regions, the researchers noted.

The researchers also found that those individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol were most likely to be aged 15-39 (59.1%) and male (76.9%).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and lack of data on drinking patterns, such as binge drinking, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the lack of data reflecting patterns of alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, and exclusion of outcomes often associated with alcohol use, such as depression, anxiety, and dementia, that might reduce estimates of TMREL and NDE.

However, the results add to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and health, the researchers said.

“The findings of this study support the development of tailored guidelines and recommendations on alcohol consumption by age and across regions and highlight that existing low consumption thresholds are too high for younger populations in all regions,” they concluded.
 

Consider individual factors when counseling patients

The takeaway message for primary care is that alcohol consumed in moderation can reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, Ms. Bryazka noted. “However, it also increases the risk of many cancers, intentional and unintentional injuries, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis,” she said. “Of these health outcomes, young people are most likely to experience injuries, and as a result, we find that there are significant health risks associated with consuming alcohol for young people. Among older individuals, the relative proportions of these outcomes vary by geography, and so do the risks associated with consuming alcohol,” she explained.

“Importantly, our analysis was conducted at the population level; when evaluating risk at the individual level, it is also important to consider other factors such as the presence of comorbidities and interactions between alcohol and medications,” she emphasized.
 

Health and alcohol interaction is complicated

“These findings seemingly contradict a previous [Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study] estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasized that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations,” wrote Robyn Burton, PhD, and Nick Sheron, MD, both of King’s College, London, in an accompanying comment.

However, the novel methods of weighting relative risk curves according to levels of underlying disease drive the difference in results, along with disaggregated estimates by age, sex, and region, they said.

“Across most geographical regions in this latest analysis, injuries accounted for most alcohol-related harm in younger age groups. This led to a minimum risk level of zero, or very close to zero, among individuals aged 15-39 years across all geographical regions,” which is lower than the level for older adults because of the shift in alcohol-related disease burden towards cardiovascular disease and cancers, they said. “This highlights the need to consider existing rates of disease in a population when trying to determine the total harm posed by alcohol,” the commentators wrote.

In an additional commentary, Tony Rao, MD, a visiting clinical research fellow in psychiatry at King’s College, London, noted that “the elephant in the room with this study is the interpretation of risk based on outcomes for cardiovascular disease – particularly in older people. We know that any purported health benefits from alcohol on the heart and circulation are balanced out by the increased risk from other conditions such as cancer, liver disease, and mental disorders such as depression and dementia,” Dr. Rao said. “If we are to simply draw the conclusion that older people should continue or start drinking small amounts because it protects against diseases affecting heart and circulation – which still remains controversial – other lifestyle changes or the use of drugs targeted at individual cardiovascular disorders seem like a less harmful way of improving health and wellbeing.”

Data can guide clinical practice

No previous study has examined the effect of the theoretical minimum risk of alcohol consumption by geography, age, sex, and time in the context of background disease rates, said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

“This study enabled the researchers to quantify the proportion of the population that consumed alcohol in amounts that exceeded the thresholds by location, age, sex, and year, and this can serve as a guide in our efforts to target the control of alcohol intake by individuals,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc. He also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The first take-home message for clinicians is that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have deleterious effects on the health of patients, and patients should be advised accordingly based on the prevalence of diseases in that community and geographic area, Dr. Deep said. “Secondly, clinicians should also consider the risk of alcohol consumption on all forms of health impacts in a given population rather than just focusing on alcohol-related health conditions,” he added.

“This study provides us with the data to tailor our efforts in educating the clinicians and the public about the relationship between alcohol consumption and disease outcomes based on the observed disease rates in each population,” Dr. Deep explained. “The data should provide another reason for physicians to advise their younger patients, especially the younger males, to avoid or minimize alcohol use,” he said. The data also can help clinicians formulate public health messaging and community education to reduce harmful alcohol use, he added.

As for additional research, Dr. Deep said he would like to see data on the difference in the health-related effects of alcohol in binge-drinkers vs. those who regularly consume alcohol on a daily basis. “It would probably also be helpful to figure out what type of alcohol is being studied and the quality of the alcohol,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Bryazka and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Burton disclosed serving as a consultant to the World Health Organization European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Dr. Sheron had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Only about 6% of cancer drugs tested in a phase 1 study in 2015 were ultimately approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by 2021, a new analysis suggests.

The researchers also found that about 8% of approved agents were subsequently taken off the market.

“The 6% is not a big surprise to us, since a few other studies using different methodologies and foci have estimated similar percentages,” Alyson Haslam, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization. “When you look at drug development, it makes sense that you have to test a lot of drugs to get one that works, but sometimes it is nice to quantify the actual percentage in order to fully appreciate the process.”

The fact that 8% were withdrawn, however, “elicits the question of how the approval process can be improved to avoid ineffective or harmful drugs from coming onto the market,” Dr. Haslam added.

The study was published online  in the International Journal of Cancer.
 

More desirable features?

Monitoring trends over time helps oncologists assess whether more drugs are making it to market and if certain factors make some drugs more likely to get approved.

Prior published estimates put the likelihood of approval between 6.7% and 13.4%, but these estimates were for drugs tested more than a decade ago.

To provide updated estimates, the researchers searched the literature for all oncology drugs tested in phase 1 studies during 2015 and evaluated their fate in subsequent phase 2/3 studies through FDA clearance.

Overall, the team found 803 phase 1 studies that met initial inclusion criteria; 48 trials that included only Japanese participants were excluded because these studies often evaluated drugs already approved in the United States, leaving 755 studies for the analysis.

The most common tumor types were solid/multiple tumors (24.2%), leukemias (12.8%), and lung cancer (8.5%). Just under half (47%) of the trials tested a drug as monotherapy; 43% were combination trials with one dose-escalated drug; and about 10% were combination trials with both drugs dose-escalated.

The FDA approved 51 drugs during the study period. Four (7.8%) were subsequently withdrawn: nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for small cell lung cancer, olaratumab (Lartruvo) for soft tissue sarcoma, and melflufen (Pepaxto) for multiple myeloma. These four were not counted in the overall number of approvals.

“We really wanted to look at the end fate of drugs (within a reasonable time frame), which is why we did not include the four drugs that were initially approved but later withdrawn, although this had little impact on the main finding,” Dr. Haslam explained.

The estimated probability of any drug or drug combination tested in a phase 1 trial published in 2015 and approved that year was 1.7% and reached 6.2% by the end of 2021, the researchers found.

Monoclonal antibodies had a higher probability of being approved (15.3%), compared with inhibitors (5.1%) and chemotherapy drugs (4.2%).

The FDA was also more apt to green-light drugs tested as monotherapy, compared with drug combinations (odds ratio, 0.22). Drugs tested in monotherapy had a 9.4% probability of approval versus those tested in combination, which had a 5.6% probability of being approved when pairing a novel drug with one or more established agents, as well as when combining two novel drugs. The probability of approval was less than 1% for trials testing two established drug combinations.

Other factors that boosted the odds of FDA approval include having a response rate over 40% in phase 1 testing, demonstrating an overall survival benefit in phase 3 testing, and having the trial sponsored by a top-20 drug company, compared with a non–top-20 drug company.

Dr. Haslam found the last finding rather surprising, given the recent trend for bigger companies to invest in smaller companies who are developing promising drugs, rather than doing all of the development themselves. “In fact, a recent analysis found that only 25% of new drugs are sponsored by larger companies,” she noted.

Reached for comment, Jeff Allen, PhD, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted that “these types of landscape analyses are quite helpful in understanding the current state of oncology science and drug development.”

When looking at a 6.2% success rate for phase 1–tested oncology drugs, “it can be difficult holistically to determine all factors for which development didn’t continue,” said Dr. Allen, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research.

For instance, lack of approval may not signal the drug was a failure “but rather an artifact of circumstances such as resource limitations or reprioritization,” Dr. Allen said.

Plus, he commented, “I don’t think that we should expect all these early studies to lead to eventual approvals, but it’s clear from the authors’ findings that continued efforts to improve the overall success rate in developing new cancer medicines are greatly needed.”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Haslam and Dr. Allen have no relevant disclosures. Study author Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, receives royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 6% of cancer drugs tested in a phase 1 study in 2015 were ultimately approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by 2021, a new analysis suggests.

The researchers also found that about 8% of approved agents were subsequently taken off the market.

“The 6% is not a big surprise to us, since a few other studies using different methodologies and foci have estimated similar percentages,” Alyson Haslam, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization. “When you look at drug development, it makes sense that you have to test a lot of drugs to get one that works, but sometimes it is nice to quantify the actual percentage in order to fully appreciate the process.”

The fact that 8% were withdrawn, however, “elicits the question of how the approval process can be improved to avoid ineffective or harmful drugs from coming onto the market,” Dr. Haslam added.

The study was published online  in the International Journal of Cancer.
 

More desirable features?

Monitoring trends over time helps oncologists assess whether more drugs are making it to market and if certain factors make some drugs more likely to get approved.

Prior published estimates put the likelihood of approval between 6.7% and 13.4%, but these estimates were for drugs tested more than a decade ago.

To provide updated estimates, the researchers searched the literature for all oncology drugs tested in phase 1 studies during 2015 and evaluated their fate in subsequent phase 2/3 studies through FDA clearance.

Overall, the team found 803 phase 1 studies that met initial inclusion criteria; 48 trials that included only Japanese participants were excluded because these studies often evaluated drugs already approved in the United States, leaving 755 studies for the analysis.

The most common tumor types were solid/multiple tumors (24.2%), leukemias (12.8%), and lung cancer (8.5%). Just under half (47%) of the trials tested a drug as monotherapy; 43% were combination trials with one dose-escalated drug; and about 10% were combination trials with both drugs dose-escalated.

The FDA approved 51 drugs during the study period. Four (7.8%) were subsequently withdrawn: nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for small cell lung cancer, olaratumab (Lartruvo) for soft tissue sarcoma, and melflufen (Pepaxto) for multiple myeloma. These four were not counted in the overall number of approvals.

“We really wanted to look at the end fate of drugs (within a reasonable time frame), which is why we did not include the four drugs that were initially approved but later withdrawn, although this had little impact on the main finding,” Dr. Haslam explained.

The estimated probability of any drug or drug combination tested in a phase 1 trial published in 2015 and approved that year was 1.7% and reached 6.2% by the end of 2021, the researchers found.

Monoclonal antibodies had a higher probability of being approved (15.3%), compared with inhibitors (5.1%) and chemotherapy drugs (4.2%).

The FDA was also more apt to green-light drugs tested as monotherapy, compared with drug combinations (odds ratio, 0.22). Drugs tested in monotherapy had a 9.4% probability of approval versus those tested in combination, which had a 5.6% probability of being approved when pairing a novel drug with one or more established agents, as well as when combining two novel drugs. The probability of approval was less than 1% for trials testing two established drug combinations.

Other factors that boosted the odds of FDA approval include having a response rate over 40% in phase 1 testing, demonstrating an overall survival benefit in phase 3 testing, and having the trial sponsored by a top-20 drug company, compared with a non–top-20 drug company.

Dr. Haslam found the last finding rather surprising, given the recent trend for bigger companies to invest in smaller companies who are developing promising drugs, rather than doing all of the development themselves. “In fact, a recent analysis found that only 25% of new drugs are sponsored by larger companies,” she noted.

Reached for comment, Jeff Allen, PhD, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted that “these types of landscape analyses are quite helpful in understanding the current state of oncology science and drug development.”

When looking at a 6.2% success rate for phase 1–tested oncology drugs, “it can be difficult holistically to determine all factors for which development didn’t continue,” said Dr. Allen, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research.

For instance, lack of approval may not signal the drug was a failure “but rather an artifact of circumstances such as resource limitations or reprioritization,” Dr. Allen said.

Plus, he commented, “I don’t think that we should expect all these early studies to lead to eventual approvals, but it’s clear from the authors’ findings that continued efforts to improve the overall success rate in developing new cancer medicines are greatly needed.”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Haslam and Dr. Allen have no relevant disclosures. Study author Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, receives royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 6% of cancer drugs tested in a phase 1 study in 2015 were ultimately approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by 2021, a new analysis suggests.

The researchers also found that about 8% of approved agents were subsequently taken off the market.

“The 6% is not a big surprise to us, since a few other studies using different methodologies and foci have estimated similar percentages,” Alyson Haslam, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization. “When you look at drug development, it makes sense that you have to test a lot of drugs to get one that works, but sometimes it is nice to quantify the actual percentage in order to fully appreciate the process.”

The fact that 8% were withdrawn, however, “elicits the question of how the approval process can be improved to avoid ineffective or harmful drugs from coming onto the market,” Dr. Haslam added.

The study was published online  in the International Journal of Cancer.
 

More desirable features?

Monitoring trends over time helps oncologists assess whether more drugs are making it to market and if certain factors make some drugs more likely to get approved.

Prior published estimates put the likelihood of approval between 6.7% and 13.4%, but these estimates were for drugs tested more than a decade ago.

To provide updated estimates, the researchers searched the literature for all oncology drugs tested in phase 1 studies during 2015 and evaluated their fate in subsequent phase 2/3 studies through FDA clearance.

Overall, the team found 803 phase 1 studies that met initial inclusion criteria; 48 trials that included only Japanese participants were excluded because these studies often evaluated drugs already approved in the United States, leaving 755 studies for the analysis.

The most common tumor types were solid/multiple tumors (24.2%), leukemias (12.8%), and lung cancer (8.5%). Just under half (47%) of the trials tested a drug as monotherapy; 43% were combination trials with one dose-escalated drug; and about 10% were combination trials with both drugs dose-escalated.

The FDA approved 51 drugs during the study period. Four (7.8%) were subsequently withdrawn: nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for small cell lung cancer, olaratumab (Lartruvo) for soft tissue sarcoma, and melflufen (Pepaxto) for multiple myeloma. These four were not counted in the overall number of approvals.

“We really wanted to look at the end fate of drugs (within a reasonable time frame), which is why we did not include the four drugs that were initially approved but later withdrawn, although this had little impact on the main finding,” Dr. Haslam explained.

The estimated probability of any drug or drug combination tested in a phase 1 trial published in 2015 and approved that year was 1.7% and reached 6.2% by the end of 2021, the researchers found.

Monoclonal antibodies had a higher probability of being approved (15.3%), compared with inhibitors (5.1%) and chemotherapy drugs (4.2%).

The FDA was also more apt to green-light drugs tested as monotherapy, compared with drug combinations (odds ratio, 0.22). Drugs tested in monotherapy had a 9.4% probability of approval versus those tested in combination, which had a 5.6% probability of being approved when pairing a novel drug with one or more established agents, as well as when combining two novel drugs. The probability of approval was less than 1% for trials testing two established drug combinations.

Other factors that boosted the odds of FDA approval include having a response rate over 40% in phase 1 testing, demonstrating an overall survival benefit in phase 3 testing, and having the trial sponsored by a top-20 drug company, compared with a non–top-20 drug company.

Dr. Haslam found the last finding rather surprising, given the recent trend for bigger companies to invest in smaller companies who are developing promising drugs, rather than doing all of the development themselves. “In fact, a recent analysis found that only 25% of new drugs are sponsored by larger companies,” she noted.

Reached for comment, Jeff Allen, PhD, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted that “these types of landscape analyses are quite helpful in understanding the current state of oncology science and drug development.”

When looking at a 6.2% success rate for phase 1–tested oncology drugs, “it can be difficult holistically to determine all factors for which development didn’t continue,” said Dr. Allen, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research.

For instance, lack of approval may not signal the drug was a failure “but rather an artifact of circumstances such as resource limitations or reprioritization,” Dr. Allen said.

Plus, he commented, “I don’t think that we should expect all these early studies to lead to eventual approvals, but it’s clear from the authors’ findings that continued efforts to improve the overall success rate in developing new cancer medicines are greatly needed.”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Haslam and Dr. Allen have no relevant disclosures. Study author Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, receives royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

A new geographic analysis of U.S. death rates from young-onset colorectal cancer found distinctive regional patterns that varied by age.

The so-called hot and cold spots of mortality from young-onset CRC differed slightly for people younger than 50 and those younger than 35, report the researchers, who say such studies may lead to better understanding of the underlying factors as well as to targeted interventions.

The authors suggest that deaths in the youngest young-onset CRC individuals “may be driven by a distinct set of factors, compared with deaths among older young-onset CRC and average-onset CRC patients.”

They add that “unmeasured factors ... may drive anomalous young-onset CRC mortality rates, either independently or in conjunction with demographic [and] modifiable variables accounted for here.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Incidence, mortality rates on the rise

The incidence and mortality rates of young-onset CRC have been increasing for decades, the authors write, but it has only recently begun to attract public health attention.

Risk factors and prognostic indicators, such as smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, diabetes, sex, race, and socioeconomic factors, have been implicated in the development of the condition.

Geospatial distribution of young-onset CRC adds an “important [layer] for understanding the underlying drivers of mortality and allocating public health resources,” the authors write.

It is “too soon” to draw conclusions about the cause of the hot and cold spots, cautioned senior author Stephanie L. Schmit, PhD, vice chair of the Genomic Medicine Institute at the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic.

Speaking to this news organization, she said, “Additional factors like proximity to primary care, gastroenterology, and cancer care facilities or novel environmental exposures may contribute to hot spots.”

On the other hand, “lifestyle factors like diet and exercise might contribute to some extent to cold spots,” she added.

While Dr. Schmit said it would be “challenging” to replicate the findings nationally, “further analyses at more granular geographic levels would be incredibly helpful.”
 

Exploring the geographical distribution

To explore the geographical distribution of young-onset CRC mortality, the researchers gathered 20 years of data on more than 1 million CRC deaths from 3,036 U.S. counties. With aggregated county-level information from 1999 to 2019, they derived mortality rates from CDC WONDER underlying cause of death data.

Over the study period, there were 69,976 deaths from CRC among individuals diagnosed before age 50, including 7,325 persons diagnosed younger than 35. Most CRC deaths (1,033,541) occurred in people diagnosed at age 50 and older.

The researchers calculated an average county-level young-onset CRC mortality rate of 1.78 deaths per 100,000 population, compared with a CRC mortality rate of 56.82 per 100,000 population among individuals 50 and older.

Overall, for individuals younger than 50 at diagnosis, the researchers found two hot spots – in the Southeast (relative risk, 1.24) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.10). They identified cold spots in lower Wisconsin (RR, 0.87), the Northeast (RR, 0.92), southwest Texas (RR, 0.90), and Western counties more broadly, including Alaska (RR, 0.82).

Further analysis of those diagnosed when younger than 35 revealed two significant young-onset CRC mortality hot spots – in the Northeast (RR, 1.25) and the upper Midwest (RR, 1.11). In this youngest group, the team also found three significant cold spots – in the Southwest (RR, 0.74), in California (RR, 0.78), and in the Mountain West (RR, 0.82).

Among those aged 35-49 years at diagnosis, researchers found three hot spots – two in the Southeast (RR,1.20 and 1.16) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.12). Several cold spots emerged from the mortality data on young-onset CRC in this age group – in the Pacific/Mountain West (RR, 0.90), in California (RR, 0.82), southern Texas (RR, 0.89), and the Southwest more broadly (RR, 0.86).

“Though cold spots were similar across strata, young-onset CRC hot spots shifted southward in the 35-49 age stratum in comparison to the less than 35 group,” the team notes.

They acknowledge several limitations to the study, including its “ecological nature” and the lack of adjustment for stage at diagnosis.

In comments to this news organization, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the approach used by the researchers was “very interesting.”

Dr. Chan said that this is “one of the first studies that has given us insight into whether there is potential geographic variation in the incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

This, he continued, is “very helpful in terms of thinking about potential risk factors for early-onset cancer and giving us more information about where we might want to focus our efforts in terms of prevention.”

Dr. Chan added that another interesting aspect of the study was that “the patterns might be different, depending on how you define early-onset cancer,” whether as “very-early onset,” defined as onset in those younger than 35, or the “less stringent definition” of 35-49 years.

He said that, “within the group that we’re calling very-early onset, there may be enriched factors,” compared with people who are “a little bit older.”

The research was supported by a National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health grant to Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Schmit reports no relevant financial relationships. Other authors have relationships with Exelixis, Tempus, Olympus, Anthos, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Nektar Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and WebMD/Medscape. Dr. Chan reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new geographic analysis of U.S. death rates from young-onset colorectal cancer found distinctive regional patterns that varied by age.

The so-called hot and cold spots of mortality from young-onset CRC differed slightly for people younger than 50 and those younger than 35, report the researchers, who say such studies may lead to better understanding of the underlying factors as well as to targeted interventions.

The authors suggest that deaths in the youngest young-onset CRC individuals “may be driven by a distinct set of factors, compared with deaths among older young-onset CRC and average-onset CRC patients.”

They add that “unmeasured factors ... may drive anomalous young-onset CRC mortality rates, either independently or in conjunction with demographic [and] modifiable variables accounted for here.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Incidence, mortality rates on the rise

The incidence and mortality rates of young-onset CRC have been increasing for decades, the authors write, but it has only recently begun to attract public health attention.

Risk factors and prognostic indicators, such as smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, diabetes, sex, race, and socioeconomic factors, have been implicated in the development of the condition.

Geospatial distribution of young-onset CRC adds an “important [layer] for understanding the underlying drivers of mortality and allocating public health resources,” the authors write.

It is “too soon” to draw conclusions about the cause of the hot and cold spots, cautioned senior author Stephanie L. Schmit, PhD, vice chair of the Genomic Medicine Institute at the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic.

Speaking to this news organization, she said, “Additional factors like proximity to primary care, gastroenterology, and cancer care facilities or novel environmental exposures may contribute to hot spots.”

On the other hand, “lifestyle factors like diet and exercise might contribute to some extent to cold spots,” she added.

While Dr. Schmit said it would be “challenging” to replicate the findings nationally, “further analyses at more granular geographic levels would be incredibly helpful.”
 

Exploring the geographical distribution

To explore the geographical distribution of young-onset CRC mortality, the researchers gathered 20 years of data on more than 1 million CRC deaths from 3,036 U.S. counties. With aggregated county-level information from 1999 to 2019, they derived mortality rates from CDC WONDER underlying cause of death data.

Over the study period, there were 69,976 deaths from CRC among individuals diagnosed before age 50, including 7,325 persons diagnosed younger than 35. Most CRC deaths (1,033,541) occurred in people diagnosed at age 50 and older.

The researchers calculated an average county-level young-onset CRC mortality rate of 1.78 deaths per 100,000 population, compared with a CRC mortality rate of 56.82 per 100,000 population among individuals 50 and older.

Overall, for individuals younger than 50 at diagnosis, the researchers found two hot spots – in the Southeast (relative risk, 1.24) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.10). They identified cold spots in lower Wisconsin (RR, 0.87), the Northeast (RR, 0.92), southwest Texas (RR, 0.90), and Western counties more broadly, including Alaska (RR, 0.82).

Further analysis of those diagnosed when younger than 35 revealed two significant young-onset CRC mortality hot spots – in the Northeast (RR, 1.25) and the upper Midwest (RR, 1.11). In this youngest group, the team also found three significant cold spots – in the Southwest (RR, 0.74), in California (RR, 0.78), and in the Mountain West (RR, 0.82).

Among those aged 35-49 years at diagnosis, researchers found three hot spots – two in the Southeast (RR,1.20 and 1.16) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.12). Several cold spots emerged from the mortality data on young-onset CRC in this age group – in the Pacific/Mountain West (RR, 0.90), in California (RR, 0.82), southern Texas (RR, 0.89), and the Southwest more broadly (RR, 0.86).

“Though cold spots were similar across strata, young-onset CRC hot spots shifted southward in the 35-49 age stratum in comparison to the less than 35 group,” the team notes.

They acknowledge several limitations to the study, including its “ecological nature” and the lack of adjustment for stage at diagnosis.

In comments to this news organization, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the approach used by the researchers was “very interesting.”

Dr. Chan said that this is “one of the first studies that has given us insight into whether there is potential geographic variation in the incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

This, he continued, is “very helpful in terms of thinking about potential risk factors for early-onset cancer and giving us more information about where we might want to focus our efforts in terms of prevention.”

Dr. Chan added that another interesting aspect of the study was that “the patterns might be different, depending on how you define early-onset cancer,” whether as “very-early onset,” defined as onset in those younger than 35, or the “less stringent definition” of 35-49 years.

He said that, “within the group that we’re calling very-early onset, there may be enriched factors,” compared with people who are “a little bit older.”

The research was supported by a National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health grant to Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Schmit reports no relevant financial relationships. Other authors have relationships with Exelixis, Tempus, Olympus, Anthos, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Nektar Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and WebMD/Medscape. Dr. Chan reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new geographic analysis of U.S. death rates from young-onset colorectal cancer found distinctive regional patterns that varied by age.

The so-called hot and cold spots of mortality from young-onset CRC differed slightly for people younger than 50 and those younger than 35, report the researchers, who say such studies may lead to better understanding of the underlying factors as well as to targeted interventions.

The authors suggest that deaths in the youngest young-onset CRC individuals “may be driven by a distinct set of factors, compared with deaths among older young-onset CRC and average-onset CRC patients.”

They add that “unmeasured factors ... may drive anomalous young-onset CRC mortality rates, either independently or in conjunction with demographic [and] modifiable variables accounted for here.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Incidence, mortality rates on the rise

The incidence and mortality rates of young-onset CRC have been increasing for decades, the authors write, but it has only recently begun to attract public health attention.

Risk factors and prognostic indicators, such as smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, diabetes, sex, race, and socioeconomic factors, have been implicated in the development of the condition.

Geospatial distribution of young-onset CRC adds an “important [layer] for understanding the underlying drivers of mortality and allocating public health resources,” the authors write.

It is “too soon” to draw conclusions about the cause of the hot and cold spots, cautioned senior author Stephanie L. Schmit, PhD, vice chair of the Genomic Medicine Institute at the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic.

Speaking to this news organization, she said, “Additional factors like proximity to primary care, gastroenterology, and cancer care facilities or novel environmental exposures may contribute to hot spots.”

On the other hand, “lifestyle factors like diet and exercise might contribute to some extent to cold spots,” she added.

While Dr. Schmit said it would be “challenging” to replicate the findings nationally, “further analyses at more granular geographic levels would be incredibly helpful.”
 

Exploring the geographical distribution

To explore the geographical distribution of young-onset CRC mortality, the researchers gathered 20 years of data on more than 1 million CRC deaths from 3,036 U.S. counties. With aggregated county-level information from 1999 to 2019, they derived mortality rates from CDC WONDER underlying cause of death data.

Over the study period, there were 69,976 deaths from CRC among individuals diagnosed before age 50, including 7,325 persons diagnosed younger than 35. Most CRC deaths (1,033,541) occurred in people diagnosed at age 50 and older.

The researchers calculated an average county-level young-onset CRC mortality rate of 1.78 deaths per 100,000 population, compared with a CRC mortality rate of 56.82 per 100,000 population among individuals 50 and older.

Overall, for individuals younger than 50 at diagnosis, the researchers found two hot spots – in the Southeast (relative risk, 1.24) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.10). They identified cold spots in lower Wisconsin (RR, 0.87), the Northeast (RR, 0.92), southwest Texas (RR, 0.90), and Western counties more broadly, including Alaska (RR, 0.82).

Further analysis of those diagnosed when younger than 35 revealed two significant young-onset CRC mortality hot spots – in the Northeast (RR, 1.25) and the upper Midwest (RR, 1.11). In this youngest group, the team also found three significant cold spots – in the Southwest (RR, 0.74), in California (RR, 0.78), and in the Mountain West (RR, 0.82).

Among those aged 35-49 years at diagnosis, researchers found three hot spots – two in the Southeast (RR,1.20 and 1.16) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.12). Several cold spots emerged from the mortality data on young-onset CRC in this age group – in the Pacific/Mountain West (RR, 0.90), in California (RR, 0.82), southern Texas (RR, 0.89), and the Southwest more broadly (RR, 0.86).

“Though cold spots were similar across strata, young-onset CRC hot spots shifted southward in the 35-49 age stratum in comparison to the less than 35 group,” the team notes.

They acknowledge several limitations to the study, including its “ecological nature” and the lack of adjustment for stage at diagnosis.

In comments to this news organization, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the approach used by the researchers was “very interesting.”

Dr. Chan said that this is “one of the first studies that has given us insight into whether there is potential geographic variation in the incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

This, he continued, is “very helpful in terms of thinking about potential risk factors for early-onset cancer and giving us more information about where we might want to focus our efforts in terms of prevention.”

Dr. Chan added that another interesting aspect of the study was that “the patterns might be different, depending on how you define early-onset cancer,” whether as “very-early onset,” defined as onset in those younger than 35, or the “less stringent definition” of 35-49 years.

He said that, “within the group that we’re calling very-early onset, there may be enriched factors,” compared with people who are “a little bit older.”

The research was supported by a National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health grant to Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Schmit reports no relevant financial relationships. Other authors have relationships with Exelixis, Tempus, Olympus, Anthos, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Nektar Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and WebMD/Medscape. Dr. Chan reports no relevant financial relationships.

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