Federal Practitioner

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening strategy in postmenopausal women demonstrated a high specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer, with most identified as stage I or II disease, a new analysis with a 21-year follow-up found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Detecting ovarian cancer at stage I or II could significantly reduce ovarian cancer-related deaths, but only 25%-30% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage.
• In this single-arm prospective analysis, 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women received annual screening for ovarian cancer between 2011 and 2022. Screening involved an annual blood test to detect levels of cancer antigen 125 and track these levels over time.
• Investigators used the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) to determine whether ovarian cancer risk was normal, intermediate, or high. Those with elevated ROCA scores were referred for transvaginal sonography; those with intermediate scores received follow-up blood tests every 3 months.
• Overall, 92.3% of women were normal risk, 5.7% were intermediate, and 2% were high risk and recommended for transvaginal sonography.

TAKEAWAY:

• Most women (95.5%) referred for transvaginal ultrasound had one. Of these ultrasounds, most (90%) were negative or revealed benign findings, 5.2% required a repeat ultrasound, and 4.8% (34 patients) showed suspicious findings.
• Of 34 patients with suspicious findings and recommended for surgery, 15 had ovarian cancer and two had borderline tumors, indicating a positive predictive value of 50% (17 of 34 patients) for ovarian cancer. Of these 17 patients, 12 (70.6%) had stage I or II disease.
• Following abnormal ROCA results, seven other women were diagnosed with endometrial tumors (six of which were stage I), indicating a positive predictive value of 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer.
• The specificity for elevated risk ROCA prompting ultrasound was 98%, and the specificity of the ROCA and ultrasound prompting surgery was 99.8%. The sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Remarkably, 70% of ovarian cancers detected by the ROCA” were early stage,” the authors concluded. Although the trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, positive predictive value, and shift to identifying earlier-stage cancers “support further development of this strategy,” the investigators said.

LIMITATIONS:

This trial was not powered to detect mortality benefit. Six ovarian cancers and borderline tumors were missed. Only 80% of ovarian cancers express cancer antigen 125, potentially limiting the sensitivity of the algorithm.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Chae Young Han from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, was published online on January 12 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funds from the NCI Early Detection Research Network, the MD Anderson Ovarian SPOREs, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others. The authors reported receiving research funding, grants, consulting, and personal fees from various companies, including Curio Science, Fujirebio Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening strategy in postmenopausal women demonstrated a high specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer, with most identified as stage I or II disease, a new analysis with a 21-year follow-up found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Detecting ovarian cancer at stage I or II could significantly reduce ovarian cancer-related deaths, but only 25%-30% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage.
• In this single-arm prospective analysis, 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women received annual screening for ovarian cancer between 2011 and 2022. Screening involved an annual blood test to detect levels of cancer antigen 125 and track these levels over time.
• Investigators used the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) to determine whether ovarian cancer risk was normal, intermediate, or high. Those with elevated ROCA scores were referred for transvaginal sonography; those with intermediate scores received follow-up blood tests every 3 months.
• Overall, 92.3% of women were normal risk, 5.7% were intermediate, and 2% were high risk and recommended for transvaginal sonography.

TAKEAWAY:

• Most women (95.5%) referred for transvaginal ultrasound had one. Of these ultrasounds, most (90%) were negative or revealed benign findings, 5.2% required a repeat ultrasound, and 4.8% (34 patients) showed suspicious findings.
• Of 34 patients with suspicious findings and recommended for surgery, 15 had ovarian cancer and two had borderline tumors, indicating a positive predictive value of 50% (17 of 34 patients) for ovarian cancer. Of these 17 patients, 12 (70.6%) had stage I or II disease.
• Following abnormal ROCA results, seven other women were diagnosed with endometrial tumors (six of which were stage I), indicating a positive predictive value of 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer.
• The specificity for elevated risk ROCA prompting ultrasound was 98%, and the specificity of the ROCA and ultrasound prompting surgery was 99.8%. The sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Remarkably, 70% of ovarian cancers detected by the ROCA” were early stage,” the authors concluded. Although the trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, positive predictive value, and shift to identifying earlier-stage cancers “support further development of this strategy,” the investigators said.

LIMITATIONS:

This trial was not powered to detect mortality benefit. Six ovarian cancers and borderline tumors were missed. Only 80% of ovarian cancers express cancer antigen 125, potentially limiting the sensitivity of the algorithm.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Chae Young Han from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, was published online on January 12 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funds from the NCI Early Detection Research Network, the MD Anderson Ovarian SPOREs, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others. The authors reported receiving research funding, grants, consulting, and personal fees from various companies, including Curio Science, Fujirebio Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening strategy in postmenopausal women demonstrated a high specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer, with most identified as stage I or II disease, a new analysis with a 21-year follow-up found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Detecting ovarian cancer at stage I or II could significantly reduce ovarian cancer-related deaths, but only 25%-30% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage.
• In this single-arm prospective analysis, 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women received annual screening for ovarian cancer between 2011 and 2022. Screening involved an annual blood test to detect levels of cancer antigen 125 and track these levels over time.
• Investigators used the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) to determine whether ovarian cancer risk was normal, intermediate, or high. Those with elevated ROCA scores were referred for transvaginal sonography; those with intermediate scores received follow-up blood tests every 3 months.
• Overall, 92.3% of women were normal risk, 5.7% were intermediate, and 2% were high risk and recommended for transvaginal sonography.

TAKEAWAY:

• Most women (95.5%) referred for transvaginal ultrasound had one. Of these ultrasounds, most (90%) were negative or revealed benign findings, 5.2% required a repeat ultrasound, and 4.8% (34 patients) showed suspicious findings.
• Of 34 patients with suspicious findings and recommended for surgery, 15 had ovarian cancer and two had borderline tumors, indicating a positive predictive value of 50% (17 of 34 patients) for ovarian cancer. Of these 17 patients, 12 (70.6%) had stage I or II disease.
• Following abnormal ROCA results, seven other women were diagnosed with endometrial tumors (six of which were stage I), indicating a positive predictive value of 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer.
• The specificity for elevated risk ROCA prompting ultrasound was 98%, and the specificity of the ROCA and ultrasound prompting surgery was 99.8%. The sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Remarkably, 70% of ovarian cancers detected by the ROCA” were early stage,” the authors concluded. Although the trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, positive predictive value, and shift to identifying earlier-stage cancers “support further development of this strategy,” the investigators said.

LIMITATIONS:

This trial was not powered to detect mortality benefit. Six ovarian cancers and borderline tumors were missed. Only 80% of ovarian cancers express cancer antigen 125, potentially limiting the sensitivity of the algorithm.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Chae Young Han from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, was published online on January 12 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funds from the NCI Early Detection Research Network, the MD Anderson Ovarian SPOREs, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others. The authors reported receiving research funding, grants, consulting, and personal fees from various companies, including Curio Science, Fujirebio Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“It’s a health emergency for society, with mortality rates at over 90%,” warned Professor Alfredo Carrato, MD, PhD, the chairperson of Pancreatic Cancer Europe.

Pancreatic cancer is the seventh most common type of cancer in Europe but is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths, behind lung, colorectal, and breast cancers. By 2030, it is widely predicted to become the second most common cause of cancer mortality.

There are many challenges with pancreatic cancer: Lack of awareness, difficult to diagnose, no screening programs for the general population, poor survival rate, and limited treatment options.

Life expectancy at the time of diagnosis is just 4.6 months. Only 3% of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer will survive for 5 years.

A 2024 systematic analysis in The Lancet suggested that people living in Western Europe are more likely to develop pancreatic cancer than those living anywhere else in the world.

Dr. Carrato, emeritus professor of medical oncology at the University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain, wasn’t surprised. He told this news organization: “I think the lifestyle in Europe plays a part. We have all of the risk factors in society like obesity, our sedentary behavior, too much red meat consumption, and excess alcohol intake.”

Other risk factors include smoking, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, and a family history.

The incidence of pancreatic cancer increases with age, so the longer life expectancy in Western Europe could also contribute to the region’s high rates.

A Silent Killer

Pancreatic cancer is difficult to identify. It is often asymptomatic. Symptoms that do show themselves, like back pain, weight loss, and nausea, are nonspecific and make early diagnosis challenging.

Professor Mattias Löhr from the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told this news organization: “It’s a dismal disease. It’s not accessible for any easy screening or surveillance. Even early diagnosis is too late with pancreatic cancer.”

There have been few advancements in patient outcomes over the past few decades.

Only about 20% of patients are suitable candidates for surgery that could prolong their lives.

Also, cancer reoccurs in two thirds of surgical candidates, said Dr. Carrato, and oncologists don’t know how to identify them in advance. “I have patients who survive 3 months and others who survive 4 or 5 years, so there’s a need to identify these subtypes at a molecular level for personalized, clinical, and translational research and therapies.”

Dr. Löhr agreed: “All of the medical therapies are not really working well enough for pancreatic cancer in sharp contrast to other cancers.”

How Can Rates Be Reduced?

“Pancreatic Cancer Europe is working in every EU state to try to raise awareness,” said Dr. Carrato. “We should have primary prevention programs to modify lifestyle risks. We also need funds for translational and clinical research. Secondary prevention isn’t possible yet as we haven’t identified the higher-risk population who would be the target for screening.”

Screening programs are available for the 10% of people who have a family history of pancreatic cancer. But, for the vast majority, there are no tests or screenings that allow for earlier detection.

“We need blood or stool tests that have high specificity and sensitivity that are cost-effective,” said Dr. Carrato.

“It’s a type of cancer with a particular and very aggressive biology. There is a lack of pancreatic tumor tissue for research, as many patients are diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration cytology. It’s a challenge for researchers. We have no biomarkers available to direct our decisions; no precision oncology,” he added. 

Still, there are some encouraging developments.

The European PANCAID project (pancreatic cancer initial detection via liquid biopsy) is trying to find biomarkers to screen at-risk groups for earlier diagnosis via a blood test.

Also, the European Union (EU)-funded PANCAIM project (pancreatic cancer artificial intelligence [AI] for genomics and personalized medicine) has developed an AI algorithm that detects small cancers in CT scans that even experienced radiologists might easily overlook.

The project’s head, Henkjan Huisman, is professor of medical imaging AI at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. He told this news organization: “It’s an extremely important step, as 20% of people with pancreas cancer have the ability to undergo surgery, which means they might live substantially longer. We believe if the tumors are found earlier, thanks to the algorithm, they are smaller and more contained, and so substantially more than 20% of patients would be suitable for surgery, which would be a breakthrough.”

Dr. Löhr added that a messenger RNA vaccine is being developed in the United States to prevent pancreatic cancer from returning after surgery and is demonstrating encouraging results in its early trials.

The Road Toward Better Care

To improve cancer care in Europe, Dr. Carrato said: “Reference centers should be a requirement in health policy programs because the outcomes are much better than in centers which only perform fewer surgeries, and Pancreatic Cancer Europe is working with the EU in this direction.”

Finland is a country that appears to have succeeded in this regard. Its 2005 Health Care Act, for example, ensures that cancer patients are able to receive care in one of its five specialized hospitals.

More research funding is also needed. According to Pancreatic Cancer Europe, only 2% of EU funding on cancer is spent on pancreatic cancer.

The American Cancer Society’s Cancer Facts & Figures 2024 makes room for some optimism, with the 5-year survival rate in the United States jumping to 13% from 6% in the society’s 2014 report, as a result of earlier diagnoses and more personalized treatment. But, even with potentially longer survival rates, said Dr. Löhr, “we are still on the trajectory of pancreatic cancer being number two for cancer deaths by 2030.”

“We need more money on research, centralized surgery, and networking between European countries,” said Dr. Carrato. “This networking would need more money for prevention, better diagnosis, and treatment. The problem is pancreatic cancer incidence is increasing and mortality is also in parallel, and we are not making real progress in this scenario.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“It’s a health emergency for society, with mortality rates at over 90%,” warned Professor Alfredo Carrato, MD, PhD, the chairperson of Pancreatic Cancer Europe.

Pancreatic cancer is the seventh most common type of cancer in Europe but is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths, behind lung, colorectal, and breast cancers. By 2030, it is widely predicted to become the second most common cause of cancer mortality.

There are many challenges with pancreatic cancer: Lack of awareness, difficult to diagnose, no screening programs for the general population, poor survival rate, and limited treatment options.

Life expectancy at the time of diagnosis is just 4.6 months. Only 3% of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer will survive for 5 years.

A 2024 systematic analysis in The Lancet suggested that people living in Western Europe are more likely to develop pancreatic cancer than those living anywhere else in the world.

Dr. Carrato, emeritus professor of medical oncology at the University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain, wasn’t surprised. He told this news organization: “I think the lifestyle in Europe plays a part. We have all of the risk factors in society like obesity, our sedentary behavior, too much red meat consumption, and excess alcohol intake.”

Other risk factors include smoking, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, and a family history.

The incidence of pancreatic cancer increases with age, so the longer life expectancy in Western Europe could also contribute to the region’s high rates.

A Silent Killer

Pancreatic cancer is difficult to identify. It is often asymptomatic. Symptoms that do show themselves, like back pain, weight loss, and nausea, are nonspecific and make early diagnosis challenging.

Professor Mattias Löhr from the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told this news organization: “It’s a dismal disease. It’s not accessible for any easy screening or surveillance. Even early diagnosis is too late with pancreatic cancer.”

There have been few advancements in patient outcomes over the past few decades.

Only about 20% of patients are suitable candidates for surgery that could prolong their lives.

Also, cancer reoccurs in two thirds of surgical candidates, said Dr. Carrato, and oncologists don’t know how to identify them in advance. “I have patients who survive 3 months and others who survive 4 or 5 years, so there’s a need to identify these subtypes at a molecular level for personalized, clinical, and translational research and therapies.”

Dr. Löhr agreed: “All of the medical therapies are not really working well enough for pancreatic cancer in sharp contrast to other cancers.”

How Can Rates Be Reduced?

“Pancreatic Cancer Europe is working in every EU state to try to raise awareness,” said Dr. Carrato. “We should have primary prevention programs to modify lifestyle risks. We also need funds for translational and clinical research. Secondary prevention isn’t possible yet as we haven’t identified the higher-risk population who would be the target for screening.”

Screening programs are available for the 10% of people who have a family history of pancreatic cancer. But, for the vast majority, there are no tests or screenings that allow for earlier detection.

“We need blood or stool tests that have high specificity and sensitivity that are cost-effective,” said Dr. Carrato.

“It’s a type of cancer with a particular and very aggressive biology. There is a lack of pancreatic tumor tissue for research, as many patients are diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration cytology. It’s a challenge for researchers. We have no biomarkers available to direct our decisions; no precision oncology,” he added. 

Still, there are some encouraging developments.

The European PANCAID project (pancreatic cancer initial detection via liquid biopsy) is trying to find biomarkers to screen at-risk groups for earlier diagnosis via a blood test.

Also, the European Union (EU)-funded PANCAIM project (pancreatic cancer artificial intelligence [AI] for genomics and personalized medicine) has developed an AI algorithm that detects small cancers in CT scans that even experienced radiologists might easily overlook.

The project’s head, Henkjan Huisman, is professor of medical imaging AI at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. He told this news organization: “It’s an extremely important step, as 20% of people with pancreas cancer have the ability to undergo surgery, which means they might live substantially longer. We believe if the tumors are found earlier, thanks to the algorithm, they are smaller and more contained, and so substantially more than 20% of patients would be suitable for surgery, which would be a breakthrough.”

Dr. Löhr added that a messenger RNA vaccine is being developed in the United States to prevent pancreatic cancer from returning after surgery and is demonstrating encouraging results in its early trials.

The Road Toward Better Care

To improve cancer care in Europe, Dr. Carrato said: “Reference centers should be a requirement in health policy programs because the outcomes are much better than in centers which only perform fewer surgeries, and Pancreatic Cancer Europe is working with the EU in this direction.”

Finland is a country that appears to have succeeded in this regard. Its 2005 Health Care Act, for example, ensures that cancer patients are able to receive care in one of its five specialized hospitals.

More research funding is also needed. According to Pancreatic Cancer Europe, only 2% of EU funding on cancer is spent on pancreatic cancer.

The American Cancer Society’s Cancer Facts & Figures 2024 makes room for some optimism, with the 5-year survival rate in the United States jumping to 13% from 6% in the society’s 2014 report, as a result of earlier diagnoses and more personalized treatment. But, even with potentially longer survival rates, said Dr. Löhr, “we are still on the trajectory of pancreatic cancer being number two for cancer deaths by 2030.”

“We need more money on research, centralized surgery, and networking between European countries,” said Dr. Carrato. “This networking would need more money for prevention, better diagnosis, and treatment. The problem is pancreatic cancer incidence is increasing and mortality is also in parallel, and we are not making real progress in this scenario.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“It’s a health emergency for society, with mortality rates at over 90%,” warned Professor Alfredo Carrato, MD, PhD, the chairperson of Pancreatic Cancer Europe.

Pancreatic cancer is the seventh most common type of cancer in Europe but is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths, behind lung, colorectal, and breast cancers. By 2030, it is widely predicted to become the second most common cause of cancer mortality.

There are many challenges with pancreatic cancer: Lack of awareness, difficult to diagnose, no screening programs for the general population, poor survival rate, and limited treatment options.

Life expectancy at the time of diagnosis is just 4.6 months. Only 3% of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer will survive for 5 years.

A 2024 systematic analysis in The Lancet suggested that people living in Western Europe are more likely to develop pancreatic cancer than those living anywhere else in the world.

Dr. Carrato, emeritus professor of medical oncology at the University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain, wasn’t surprised. He told this news organization: “I think the lifestyle in Europe plays a part. We have all of the risk factors in society like obesity, our sedentary behavior, too much red meat consumption, and excess alcohol intake.”

Other risk factors include smoking, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, and a family history.

The incidence of pancreatic cancer increases with age, so the longer life expectancy in Western Europe could also contribute to the region’s high rates.

A Silent Killer

Pancreatic cancer is difficult to identify. It is often asymptomatic. Symptoms that do show themselves, like back pain, weight loss, and nausea, are nonspecific and make early diagnosis challenging.

Professor Mattias Löhr from the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told this news organization: “It’s a dismal disease. It’s not accessible for any easy screening or surveillance. Even early diagnosis is too late with pancreatic cancer.”

There have been few advancements in patient outcomes over the past few decades.

Only about 20% of patients are suitable candidates for surgery that could prolong their lives.

Also, cancer reoccurs in two thirds of surgical candidates, said Dr. Carrato, and oncologists don’t know how to identify them in advance. “I have patients who survive 3 months and others who survive 4 or 5 years, so there’s a need to identify these subtypes at a molecular level for personalized, clinical, and translational research and therapies.”

Dr. Löhr agreed: “All of the medical therapies are not really working well enough for pancreatic cancer in sharp contrast to other cancers.”

How Can Rates Be Reduced?

“Pancreatic Cancer Europe is working in every EU state to try to raise awareness,” said Dr. Carrato. “We should have primary prevention programs to modify lifestyle risks. We also need funds for translational and clinical research. Secondary prevention isn’t possible yet as we haven’t identified the higher-risk population who would be the target for screening.”

Screening programs are available for the 10% of people who have a family history of pancreatic cancer. But, for the vast majority, there are no tests or screenings that allow for earlier detection.

“We need blood or stool tests that have high specificity and sensitivity that are cost-effective,” said Dr. Carrato.

“It’s a type of cancer with a particular and very aggressive biology. There is a lack of pancreatic tumor tissue for research, as many patients are diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration cytology. It’s a challenge for researchers. We have no biomarkers available to direct our decisions; no precision oncology,” he added. 

Still, there are some encouraging developments.

The European PANCAID project (pancreatic cancer initial detection via liquid biopsy) is trying to find biomarkers to screen at-risk groups for earlier diagnosis via a blood test.

Also, the European Union (EU)-funded PANCAIM project (pancreatic cancer artificial intelligence [AI] for genomics and personalized medicine) has developed an AI algorithm that detects small cancers in CT scans that even experienced radiologists might easily overlook.

The project’s head, Henkjan Huisman, is professor of medical imaging AI at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. He told this news organization: “It’s an extremely important step, as 20% of people with pancreas cancer have the ability to undergo surgery, which means they might live substantially longer. We believe if the tumors are found earlier, thanks to the algorithm, they are smaller and more contained, and so substantially more than 20% of patients would be suitable for surgery, which would be a breakthrough.”

Dr. Löhr added that a messenger RNA vaccine is being developed in the United States to prevent pancreatic cancer from returning after surgery and is demonstrating encouraging results in its early trials.

The Road Toward Better Care

To improve cancer care in Europe, Dr. Carrato said: “Reference centers should be a requirement in health policy programs because the outcomes are much better than in centers which only perform fewer surgeries, and Pancreatic Cancer Europe is working with the EU in this direction.”

Finland is a country that appears to have succeeded in this regard. Its 2005 Health Care Act, for example, ensures that cancer patients are able to receive care in one of its five specialized hospitals.

More research funding is also needed. According to Pancreatic Cancer Europe, only 2% of EU funding on cancer is spent on pancreatic cancer.

The American Cancer Society’s Cancer Facts & Figures 2024 makes room for some optimism, with the 5-year survival rate in the United States jumping to 13% from 6% in the society’s 2014 report, as a result of earlier diagnoses and more personalized treatment. But, even with potentially longer survival rates, said Dr. Löhr, “we are still on the trajectory of pancreatic cancer being number two for cancer deaths by 2030.”

“We need more money on research, centralized surgery, and networking between European countries,” said Dr. Carrato. “This networking would need more money for prevention, better diagnosis, and treatment. The problem is pancreatic cancer incidence is increasing and mortality is also in parallel, and we are not making real progress in this scenario.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who mainly sit while on the job increase their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by more than one third compared with peers who largely don’t sit at work, new research shows. 

However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say. 

“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan. 

“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York. 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart 

2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity. 

For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk. 

Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected. 

During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group. 

In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work. 

Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). 

Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work. 

“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote. 

“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added. 

Simple Yet Profound Message 

Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting. 

The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.

“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added. 

Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who mainly sit while on the job increase their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by more than one third compared with peers who largely don’t sit at work, new research shows. 

However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say. 

“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan. 

“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York. 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart 

2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity. 

For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk. 

Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected. 

During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group. 

In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work. 

Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). 

Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work. 

“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote. 

“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added. 

Simple Yet Profound Message 

Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting. 

The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.

“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added. 

Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who mainly sit while on the job increase their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by more than one third compared with peers who largely don’t sit at work, new research shows. 

However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say. 

“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan. 

“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York. 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart 

2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity. 

For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk. 

Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected. 

During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group. 

In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work. 

Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). 

Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work. 

“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote. 

“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added. 

Simple Yet Profound Message 

Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting. 

The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.

“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added. 

Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.