Federal Practitioner

Objectives

The VA Oncology Clinical Pathway for Prostate Cancer is the first to include both tumor and germline testing to inform treatment and clinical trial eligibility for advanced disease. Anticipating increased germline testing demand, new germline testing delivery models were created to augment the existing traditional model of referring patients to genetics providers (VA or non-VA) for germline testing. The new models include: a non-traditional model where oncology clinicians perform all pre- and post-test activities and consult genetics when needed, and a hybrid model where oncology clinicians obtain informed consent and place e-consults for germline test ordering, results disclosure, and genetics follow-up, as needed. We sought to assess germline testing by delivery model.

Methods

Data sources included the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP) dashboard and NPOP-contracted germline testing laboratories. Patient inclusion criteria: living as of 5/2/2021 with VA oncology or urology visits after 5/2/2021. We used multivariate regression to assess associations between patient characteristics and germline testing between 5/3/2021 (pathway launch) and 5/2/2022, accounting for clustering of patients within ordering clinicians.

Results

We identified 16,041 patients from 129 VA facilities with average age 75 years (SD, 8.2; range, 36- 102), 28.7% Black and 60.0% White. Only 5.6% had germline testing ordered by 60 clinicians at 67 facilities with 52.2% of orders by the hybrid model, 32.1% the non-traditional model, and 15.4% the traditional model. Patient characteristics positively associated with germline testing included care at hybrid model (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 4.62-7.88) or non-traditional model facilities (OR, 5.66; 95% CI, 4.24-7.56) compared to the traditional model, completing tumor molecular testing (OR, 5.80; 95%CI, 4.98-6.75), and Black compared with White race (OR, 1.24; 95%CI, 1.06-1.45). Compared to patients aged < 66 years, patients aged 66-75 years and 76-85 years were less likely to have germline testing (OR, 0.74; 95%CI, 0.60-0.90; and OR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.53-0.84, respectively).

Conclusions/Implications

Though only a small percentage of patients with advanced prostate cancer had NPOP-supported germline testing since the pathway launch, the new delivery models were instrumental to improving access to germline testing. Ongoing evaluation will help to understand observed demographic differences in germline testing. Implementation and evaluation of strategies that promote adoption of the new germline testing delivery models is needed. 0922FED AVAHO_Abstracts.indd 15 8

Objectives

The VA Oncology Clinical Pathway for Prostate Cancer is the first to include both tumor and germline testing to inform treatment and clinical trial eligibility for advanced disease. Anticipating increased germline testing demand, new germline testing delivery models were created to augment the existing traditional model of referring patients to genetics providers (VA or non-VA) for germline testing. The new models include: a non-traditional model where oncology clinicians perform all pre- and post-test activities and consult genetics when needed, and a hybrid model where oncology clinicians obtain informed consent and place e-consults for germline test ordering, results disclosure, and genetics follow-up, as needed. We sought to assess germline testing by delivery model.

Methods

Data sources included the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP) dashboard and NPOP-contracted germline testing laboratories. Patient inclusion criteria: living as of 5/2/2021 with VA oncology or urology visits after 5/2/2021. We used multivariate regression to assess associations between patient characteristics and germline testing between 5/3/2021 (pathway launch) and 5/2/2022, accounting for clustering of patients within ordering clinicians.

Results

We identified 16,041 patients from 129 VA facilities with average age 75 years (SD, 8.2; range, 36- 102), 28.7% Black and 60.0% White. Only 5.6% had germline testing ordered by 60 clinicians at 67 facilities with 52.2% of orders by the hybrid model, 32.1% the non-traditional model, and 15.4% the traditional model. Patient characteristics positively associated with germline testing included care at hybrid model (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 4.62-7.88) or non-traditional model facilities (OR, 5.66; 95% CI, 4.24-7.56) compared to the traditional model, completing tumor molecular testing (OR, 5.80; 95%CI, 4.98-6.75), and Black compared with White race (OR, 1.24; 95%CI, 1.06-1.45). Compared to patients aged < 66 years, patients aged 66-75 years and 76-85 years were less likely to have germline testing (OR, 0.74; 95%CI, 0.60-0.90; and OR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.53-0.84, respectively).

Conclusions/Implications

Though only a small percentage of patients with advanced prostate cancer had NPOP-supported germline testing since the pathway launch, the new delivery models were instrumental to improving access to germline testing. Ongoing evaluation will help to understand observed demographic differences in germline testing. Implementation and evaluation of strategies that promote adoption of the new germline testing delivery models is needed. 0922FED AVAHO_Abstracts.indd 15 8

Objectives

The VA Oncology Clinical Pathway for Prostate Cancer is the first to include both tumor and germline testing to inform treatment and clinical trial eligibility for advanced disease. Anticipating increased germline testing demand, new germline testing delivery models were created to augment the existing traditional model of referring patients to genetics providers (VA or non-VA) for germline testing. The new models include: a non-traditional model where oncology clinicians perform all pre- and post-test activities and consult genetics when needed, and a hybrid model where oncology clinicians obtain informed consent and place e-consults for germline test ordering, results disclosure, and genetics follow-up, as needed. We sought to assess germline testing by delivery model.

Methods

Data sources included the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP) dashboard and NPOP-contracted germline testing laboratories. Patient inclusion criteria: living as of 5/2/2021 with VA oncology or urology visits after 5/2/2021. We used multivariate regression to assess associations between patient characteristics and germline testing between 5/3/2021 (pathway launch) and 5/2/2022, accounting for clustering of patients within ordering clinicians.

Results

We identified 16,041 patients from 129 VA facilities with average age 75 years (SD, 8.2; range, 36- 102), 28.7% Black and 60.0% White. Only 5.6% had germline testing ordered by 60 clinicians at 67 facilities with 52.2% of orders by the hybrid model, 32.1% the non-traditional model, and 15.4% the traditional model. Patient characteristics positively associated with germline testing included care at hybrid model (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 4.62-7.88) or non-traditional model facilities (OR, 5.66; 95% CI, 4.24-7.56) compared to the traditional model, completing tumor molecular testing (OR, 5.80; 95%CI, 4.98-6.75), and Black compared with White race (OR, 1.24; 95%CI, 1.06-1.45). Compared to patients aged < 66 years, patients aged 66-75 years and 76-85 years were less likely to have germline testing (OR, 0.74; 95%CI, 0.60-0.90; and OR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.53-0.84, respectively).

Conclusions/Implications

Though only a small percentage of patients with advanced prostate cancer had NPOP-supported germline testing since the pathway launch, the new delivery models were instrumental to improving access to germline testing. Ongoing evaluation will help to understand observed demographic differences in germline testing. Implementation and evaluation of strategies that promote adoption of the new germline testing delivery models is needed. 0922FED AVAHO_Abstracts.indd 15 8

Background

There are no studies in oncologic literature that report biomarker alterations in Vietnam War veterans with lung cancers. Our study elucidates genetic mutations in veterans with lung cancer exposed to Agent Orange (AO) and compares them to non-Agent Orange exposed (NAO) veterans.

Methods

We collected data of veterans with lung cancers from VA Central California Health Care System who had NGS testing via Foundation One CDx from January 2007 to January 2022. We collected data of AO versus NAO veterans including age, race, gender, smoking and exposure history, histologic subtypes, treatment modalities, PDL-1, and molecular mutations. Median PFS and OS were calculated between AO and NAO in all veterans and adenocarcinoma group after first-line therapy in months by Kaplan-Meier R log-rank test.

Results

There were total of 58 lung cancer veterans, 27 AO and 31 NAO. 33 (56.9%) veterans had adenocarcinoma (20 AO vs 13 NAO). Veterans were White (81%), male (93%) and all had tobacco exposure. The median age at diagnosis was 72 years in both groups. 65.5% had stage III-IV disease. Veterans with AO adenocarcinoma had more early stage I-II disease (50%) as compared to NAO (16%). The AO group had more PDL1 expression (TPS > 1%). 15/31 (48.4%) NAO received immunotherapy vs 7/27 (25.9%) AO. 104 molecular mutations were identified. Veterans with AO had more ROS1, MET, and NRAS while NAO had more EGFR, KRAS, and NF1 mutations. In adenocarcinoma group, AO had more MET and less KRAS while NAO has more KRAS, TP53, and EGFR. The median PFS and OS for all veterans with AO vs NAO were 8 mo vs 6 mo and 12 mo vs 10 mo, respectively (non-significant [NS]). In adenocarcinoma group the median PFS and OS for AO vs NAO veterans were 8 mo vs 4 mo and 11.75 mo vs 6 mo, respectively (NS).

Conclusions

Our study is the first to report molecular biomarkers in AO and NAO veterans with lung cancers. We found different markers between the groups. The median PFS and OS of AO and adenocarcinoma AO veterans were longer due to early stage diagnoses while NAO vetera

Background

There are no studies in oncologic literature that report biomarker alterations in Vietnam War veterans with lung cancers. Our study elucidates genetic mutations in veterans with lung cancer exposed to Agent Orange (AO) and compares them to non-Agent Orange exposed (NAO) veterans.

Methods

We collected data of veterans with lung cancers from VA Central California Health Care System who had NGS testing via Foundation One CDx from January 2007 to January 2022. We collected data of AO versus NAO veterans including age, race, gender, smoking and exposure history, histologic subtypes, treatment modalities, PDL-1, and molecular mutations. Median PFS and OS were calculated between AO and NAO in all veterans and adenocarcinoma group after first-line therapy in months by Kaplan-Meier R log-rank test.

Results

There were total of 58 lung cancer veterans, 27 AO and 31 NAO. 33 (56.9%) veterans had adenocarcinoma (20 AO vs 13 NAO). Veterans were White (81%), male (93%) and all had tobacco exposure. The median age at diagnosis was 72 years in both groups. 65.5% had stage III-IV disease. Veterans with AO adenocarcinoma had more early stage I-II disease (50%) as compared to NAO (16%). The AO group had more PDL1 expression (TPS > 1%). 15/31 (48.4%) NAO received immunotherapy vs 7/27 (25.9%) AO. 104 molecular mutations were identified. Veterans with AO had more ROS1, MET, and NRAS while NAO had more EGFR, KRAS, and NF1 mutations. In adenocarcinoma group, AO had more MET and less KRAS while NAO has more KRAS, TP53, and EGFR. The median PFS and OS for all veterans with AO vs NAO were 8 mo vs 6 mo and 12 mo vs 10 mo, respectively (non-significant [NS]). In adenocarcinoma group the median PFS and OS for AO vs NAO veterans were 8 mo vs 4 mo and 11.75 mo vs 6 mo, respectively (NS).

Conclusions

Our study is the first to report molecular biomarkers in AO and NAO veterans with lung cancers. We found different markers between the groups. The median PFS and OS of AO and adenocarcinoma AO veterans were longer due to early stage diagnoses while NAO vetera

Background

There are no studies in oncologic literature that report biomarker alterations in Vietnam War veterans with lung cancers. Our study elucidates genetic mutations in veterans with lung cancer exposed to Agent Orange (AO) and compares them to non-Agent Orange exposed (NAO) veterans.

Methods

We collected data of veterans with lung cancers from VA Central California Health Care System who had NGS testing via Foundation One CDx from January 2007 to January 2022. We collected data of AO versus NAO veterans including age, race, gender, smoking and exposure history, histologic subtypes, treatment modalities, PDL-1, and molecular mutations. Median PFS and OS were calculated between AO and NAO in all veterans and adenocarcinoma group after first-line therapy in months by Kaplan-Meier R log-rank test.

Results

There were total of 58 lung cancer veterans, 27 AO and 31 NAO. 33 (56.9%) veterans had adenocarcinoma (20 AO vs 13 NAO). Veterans were White (81%), male (93%) and all had tobacco exposure. The median age at diagnosis was 72 years in both groups. 65.5% had stage III-IV disease. Veterans with AO adenocarcinoma had more early stage I-II disease (50%) as compared to NAO (16%). The AO group had more PDL1 expression (TPS > 1%). 15/31 (48.4%) NAO received immunotherapy vs 7/27 (25.9%) AO. 104 molecular mutations were identified. Veterans with AO had more ROS1, MET, and NRAS while NAO had more EGFR, KRAS, and NF1 mutations. In adenocarcinoma group, AO had more MET and less KRAS while NAO has more KRAS, TP53, and EGFR. The median PFS and OS for all veterans with AO vs NAO were 8 mo vs 6 mo and 12 mo vs 10 mo, respectively (non-significant [NS]). In adenocarcinoma group the median PFS and OS for AO vs NAO veterans were 8 mo vs 4 mo and 11.75 mo vs 6 mo, respectively (NS).

Conclusions

Our study is the first to report molecular biomarkers in AO and NAO veterans with lung cancers. We found different markers between the groups. The median PFS and OS of AO and adenocarcinoma AO veterans were longer due to early stage diagnoses while NAO vetera

Introduction

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common and lethal cancers. Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) has been recommended as a tool to help guide treatment by identifying actionable genetic mutations. However, data regarding realworld usage of NGS in a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is lacking. We conducted a retrospective observational study of the patterns of NGS usage in patients with mCRC at the South Texas Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (STVAHCS).

Methods

We identified patients with a diagnosis of mCRC evaluated and treated at STVAHCS between January 1, 2018 and June 1, 2022. We assessed the prevalence of utilizing NGS on solid tumor samples performed by Foundation One and identified the presence of different molecular aberrations detected by NGS.

Results

65 patients were identified. Median age was 68 years. 63 (96.9%) were males and 2 (3.1%) were females. 29 (44.6%) were Hispanic, 25 (38.5%) were White, 10 (15.4%) were African American and 1 (1.5%) was Pacific Islander. NGS was performed in 34 (52.3%) patients. The most common reasons for not performing NGS were unknown/not documented (54.8%), early mortality (29%), lack of adequate tissue (12.9%) and patient refusal of treatment (3.2%). The most common molecular aberrations identified in patients who had NGS were TP53 (73.5%), APC (64.7%), KRAS (47.1%), ATM (20.6%), SMAD4 (14.7%) and BRAF (14.7%). All patients who had NGS were found to have at least one identifiable mutation.

Conclusions

 Approximately 50% of patients with mCRC did not have NGS performed on their tissue sample. This rate is similar to other real-world studies in non-VA settings. Documented reasons for lack of NGS testing included inadequate tissue and early patient mortality. Other potential reasons could be lack of efficient VA clinical testing protocols, use of simple molecular testing rather than comprehensive NGS testing and limited knowledge of availability of NGS among providers. Measures that can be taken to increase utilization of NGS include incorporating NGS testing early in the disease course, incorporating testing into VA clinical pathways, improving physician education, increasing the size of solid tissue samples and ordering liquid biopsies where solid tissue is deficient.

Introduction

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common and lethal cancers. Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) has been recommended as a tool to help guide treatment by identifying actionable genetic mutations. However, data regarding realworld usage of NGS in a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is lacking. We conducted a retrospective observational study of the patterns of NGS usage in patients with mCRC at the South Texas Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (STVAHCS).

Methods

We identified patients with a diagnosis of mCRC evaluated and treated at STVAHCS between January 1, 2018 and June 1, 2022. We assessed the prevalence of utilizing NGS on solid tumor samples performed by Foundation One and identified the presence of different molecular aberrations detected by NGS.

Results

65 patients were identified. Median age was 68 years. 63 (96.9%) were males and 2 (3.1%) were females. 29 (44.6%) were Hispanic, 25 (38.5%) were White, 10 (15.4%) were African American and 1 (1.5%) was Pacific Islander. NGS was performed in 34 (52.3%) patients. The most common reasons for not performing NGS were unknown/not documented (54.8%), early mortality (29%), lack of adequate tissue (12.9%) and patient refusal of treatment (3.2%). The most common molecular aberrations identified in patients who had NGS were TP53 (73.5%), APC (64.7%), KRAS (47.1%), ATM (20.6%), SMAD4 (14.7%) and BRAF (14.7%). All patients who had NGS were found to have at least one identifiable mutation.

Conclusions

 Approximately 50% of patients with mCRC did not have NGS performed on their tissue sample. This rate is similar to other real-world studies in non-VA settings. Documented reasons for lack of NGS testing included inadequate tissue and early patient mortality. Other potential reasons could be lack of efficient VA clinical testing protocols, use of simple molecular testing rather than comprehensive NGS testing and limited knowledge of availability of NGS among providers. Measures that can be taken to increase utilization of NGS include incorporating NGS testing early in the disease course, incorporating testing into VA clinical pathways, improving physician education, increasing the size of solid tissue samples and ordering liquid biopsies where solid tissue is deficient.

Introduction

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common and lethal cancers. Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) has been recommended as a tool to help guide treatment by identifying actionable genetic mutations. However, data regarding realworld usage of NGS in a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is lacking. We conducted a retrospective observational study of the patterns of NGS usage in patients with mCRC at the South Texas Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (STVAHCS).

Methods

We identified patients with a diagnosis of mCRC evaluated and treated at STVAHCS between January 1, 2018 and June 1, 2022. We assessed the prevalence of utilizing NGS on solid tumor samples performed by Foundation One and identified the presence of different molecular aberrations detected by NGS.

Results

65 patients were identified. Median age was 68 years. 63 (96.9%) were males and 2 (3.1%) were females. 29 (44.6%) were Hispanic, 25 (38.5%) were White, 10 (15.4%) were African American and 1 (1.5%) was Pacific Islander. NGS was performed in 34 (52.3%) patients. The most common reasons for not performing NGS were unknown/not documented (54.8%), early mortality (29%), lack of adequate tissue (12.9%) and patient refusal of treatment (3.2%). The most common molecular aberrations identified in patients who had NGS were TP53 (73.5%), APC (64.7%), KRAS (47.1%), ATM (20.6%), SMAD4 (14.7%) and BRAF (14.7%). All patients who had NGS were found to have at least one identifiable mutation.

Conclusions

 Approximately 50% of patients with mCRC did not have NGS performed on their tissue sample. This rate is similar to other real-world studies in non-VA settings. Documented reasons for lack of NGS testing included inadequate tissue and early patient mortality. Other potential reasons could be lack of efficient VA clinical testing protocols, use of simple molecular testing rather than comprehensive NGS testing and limited knowledge of availability of NGS among providers. Measures that can be taken to increase utilization of NGS include incorporating NGS testing early in the disease course, incorporating testing into VA clinical pathways, improving physician education, increasing the size of solid tissue samples and ordering liquid biopsies where solid tissue is deficient.

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

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

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

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

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

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

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lower levels of serum sclerostin (SOST) were significantly associated with increased risk of lung exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 139 individuals.

COPD exacerbations contribute to poorer prognosis and diminished quality of life, but many potential triggers of these exacerbations, including serum biomarkers, have not been well studied, wrote Carlos A. Amado, MD, of Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain, and colleagues.

These biomarkers include sclerostin, which is associated with bone metabolism and may play a role in “muscle-bone crosstalk,” thereby impacting lung function, they said.

In a study published in Pulmonology, the researchers recruited 139 adult outpatients with stable COPD and normal kidney function who were treated at a single center. The patients were followed for 12 months after study enrollment and a baseline assessment of serum SOST, bone metabolism parameters, body composition, clinical characteristics, and lung function. The mean age of the participants was 65.8 years, and 71% were men. Notably, 41.7% of the participants were current smokers. Body composition was assessed using fat-free mass index (FFMI), and lung function was assessed using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC).

A total of 55 patients had SOST levels of 20 pmol/L at baseline, and 84 had SOST levels greater than 20 pmol/L. In a multivariate analysis, only age and FFMI were positively correlated with SOST levels (beta = 0.264 and beta = 1.241, respectively).

Patients in the lower tertile of SOST levels had a significantly higher risk of moderate COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 2.015; P = .017) and hospital admission related to COPD (HR, 5.142; P = .015), compared with the other patients. Also in a multivariate analysis, low levels of SOST were independently associated with FFMI (odds ratio, 1.936; P = .004) but not with any of the other variables.

“We can only speculate about the possible causes and effects of low SOST in COPD,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “we found that SOST and FFMI were positively associated in patients with COPD; therefore, lower levels of circulating SOST might reflect sarcopenia,” they noted. Low levels of muscle mass are associated with COPD exacerbations, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of patients from only one center and the high prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in the study population. The study also was not designed to show causality, the researchers said.

However, the results were strengthened by their specific design and overall well-selected population, as well as the evaluation of bone metabolism, they said.

The study offers the first evidence of an association between SOST and clinical outcomes in COPD “and may have a role as a biomarker to evaluate the risk of exacerbation and hospitalization in COPD,” but more research is needed in other populations to fully evaluate the therapeutic aspects of the study findings, the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria of Cantabria. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Lower levels of serum sclerostin (SOST) were significantly associated with increased risk of lung exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 139 individuals.

COPD exacerbations contribute to poorer prognosis and diminished quality of life, but many potential triggers of these exacerbations, including serum biomarkers, have not been well studied, wrote Carlos A. Amado, MD, of Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain, and colleagues.

These biomarkers include sclerostin, which is associated with bone metabolism and may play a role in “muscle-bone crosstalk,” thereby impacting lung function, they said.

In a study published in Pulmonology, the researchers recruited 139 adult outpatients with stable COPD and normal kidney function who were treated at a single center. The patients were followed for 12 months after study enrollment and a baseline assessment of serum SOST, bone metabolism parameters, body composition, clinical characteristics, and lung function. The mean age of the participants was 65.8 years, and 71% were men. Notably, 41.7% of the participants were current smokers. Body composition was assessed using fat-free mass index (FFMI), and lung function was assessed using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC).

A total of 55 patients had SOST levels of 20 pmol/L at baseline, and 84 had SOST levels greater than 20 pmol/L. In a multivariate analysis, only age and FFMI were positively correlated with SOST levels (beta = 0.264 and beta = 1.241, respectively).

Patients in the lower tertile of SOST levels had a significantly higher risk of moderate COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 2.015; P = .017) and hospital admission related to COPD (HR, 5.142; P = .015), compared with the other patients. Also in a multivariate analysis, low levels of SOST were independently associated with FFMI (odds ratio, 1.936; P = .004) but not with any of the other variables.

“We can only speculate about the possible causes and effects of low SOST in COPD,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “we found that SOST and FFMI were positively associated in patients with COPD; therefore, lower levels of circulating SOST might reflect sarcopenia,” they noted. Low levels of muscle mass are associated with COPD exacerbations, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of patients from only one center and the high prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in the study population. The study also was not designed to show causality, the researchers said.

However, the results were strengthened by their specific design and overall well-selected population, as well as the evaluation of bone metabolism, they said.

The study offers the first evidence of an association between SOST and clinical outcomes in COPD “and may have a role as a biomarker to evaluate the risk of exacerbation and hospitalization in COPD,” but more research is needed in other populations to fully evaluate the therapeutic aspects of the study findings, the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria of Cantabria. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Lower levels of serum sclerostin (SOST) were significantly associated with increased risk of lung exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 139 individuals.

COPD exacerbations contribute to poorer prognosis and diminished quality of life, but many potential triggers of these exacerbations, including serum biomarkers, have not been well studied, wrote Carlos A. Amado, MD, of Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain, and colleagues.

These biomarkers include sclerostin, which is associated with bone metabolism and may play a role in “muscle-bone crosstalk,” thereby impacting lung function, they said.

In a study published in Pulmonology, the researchers recruited 139 adult outpatients with stable COPD and normal kidney function who were treated at a single center. The patients were followed for 12 months after study enrollment and a baseline assessment of serum SOST, bone metabolism parameters, body composition, clinical characteristics, and lung function. The mean age of the participants was 65.8 years, and 71% were men. Notably, 41.7% of the participants were current smokers. Body composition was assessed using fat-free mass index (FFMI), and lung function was assessed using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC).

A total of 55 patients had SOST levels of 20 pmol/L at baseline, and 84 had SOST levels greater than 20 pmol/L. In a multivariate analysis, only age and FFMI were positively correlated with SOST levels (beta = 0.264 and beta = 1.241, respectively).

Patients in the lower tertile of SOST levels had a significantly higher risk of moderate COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 2.015; P = .017) and hospital admission related to COPD (HR, 5.142; P = .015), compared with the other patients. Also in a multivariate analysis, low levels of SOST were independently associated with FFMI (odds ratio, 1.936; P = .004) but not with any of the other variables.

“We can only speculate about the possible causes and effects of low SOST in COPD,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “we found that SOST and FFMI were positively associated in patients with COPD; therefore, lower levels of circulating SOST might reflect sarcopenia,” they noted. Low levels of muscle mass are associated with COPD exacerbations, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of patients from only one center and the high prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in the study population. The study also was not designed to show causality, the researchers said.

However, the results were strengthened by their specific design and overall well-selected population, as well as the evaluation of bone metabolism, they said.

The study offers the first evidence of an association between SOST and clinical outcomes in COPD “and may have a role as a biomarker to evaluate the risk of exacerbation and hospitalization in COPD,” but more research is needed in other populations to fully evaluate the therapeutic aspects of the study findings, the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria of Cantabria. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Patient outcomes could be threatened because of misinterpretation by oncologic surgeons of free-form posttreatment radiological reports in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), a new study finds.

“Clinician perception of patient response from the post-RT [radiation treament] PET/CT free-form report is unreliable and does not consistently reflect the radiologist’s intended meaning, which was strongly associated with survival,” researchers wrote in a study published Aug. 18 in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery. They found “minimal agreement between clinicians’ consensus perspective on the patient’s response status derived from free-form imaging reports and the criterion standard response category assigned by a nuclear medicine specialist after PET/CT image review.”

According to radiation oncologist Ryan T. Hughes, MD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., it’s common for patients with HNSCC to get PET, CT, or PET/CT imaging following treatment in order to assess how patients responded. Accurate communication about the results is essential to determining next steps, they write.

However, they write, “to our knowledge there is no universally accepted standardized method for communicating results,” such as whether there’s been a complete or partial response. Discrepancies between a radiological posttreatment report and an oncologist’s perception of the findings “may contribute to unnecessary patient care complexities, including elevated patient anxiety, unnecessary follow-up testing/procedures, and failure to recognize and adequately treat residual, recurrent, or progressive disease,” the researchers write.

For the new study, the authors tracked 171 patients (26.3% women, median age 61 years, ethnicity not provided), mainly (87%) with stage III-IV disease. Most (89%) received concurrent chemotherapy, and 30% received radiotherapy following operations.

Four oncologists reviewed free-form radiologic reports and determined whether the patient had a complete, indeterminate or partial response, or progressive disease. “Next, the group conferred to assign a consensus clinician MDS [modified Deauville score] and associated response category to assess the percentage of agreement with the criterion standard nuclear medicine physician MDS response derived from PET/CT image review.”

The researchers found that “interrater reliability of clinician-perceived post-RT PET/CT response was moderate [k = 0.680; 95% confidence interval, 0.638-0.721], and there was minimal reliability and low rate of agreement between clinician perception and radiologist-intended PET/CT response [63.7%; k = 0.365; 95% CI, 0.251-0.478).”

The clinicians were more likely to perceive patients as having an indeterminate response (28.1%), compared with the radiologists (9.3%). “There were 16 instances of significant discordance: 7 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 1 to 2 and nuclear medicine MDS 3 to 4, and 9 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 3 to 4 and nuclear medicine MDS 1 to 2.”

Due to statistical limitations, the researchers were unable to link the MDS scores to prognoses. The researchers suggest it’s time to further standardize the assessment of posttreatment responses to therapy. They add that “the decision to use a standardized interpretation and reporting system rather than free-form reporting is more important than the specific system selected.”

As for next steps, the researchers report that “prospective studies of post-RT PET/CT standardized reporting among patients with HNSCC are warranted, and a prospective implementation study of this workflow is planned at our institution.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

Patient outcomes could be threatened because of misinterpretation by oncologic surgeons of free-form posttreatment radiological reports in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), a new study finds.

“Clinician perception of patient response from the post-RT [radiation treament] PET/CT free-form report is unreliable and does not consistently reflect the radiologist’s intended meaning, which was strongly associated with survival,” researchers wrote in a study published Aug. 18 in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery. They found “minimal agreement between clinicians’ consensus perspective on the patient’s response status derived from free-form imaging reports and the criterion standard response category assigned by a nuclear medicine specialist after PET/CT image review.”

According to radiation oncologist Ryan T. Hughes, MD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., it’s common for patients with HNSCC to get PET, CT, or PET/CT imaging following treatment in order to assess how patients responded. Accurate communication about the results is essential to determining next steps, they write.

However, they write, “to our knowledge there is no universally accepted standardized method for communicating results,” such as whether there’s been a complete or partial response. Discrepancies between a radiological posttreatment report and an oncologist’s perception of the findings “may contribute to unnecessary patient care complexities, including elevated patient anxiety, unnecessary follow-up testing/procedures, and failure to recognize and adequately treat residual, recurrent, or progressive disease,” the researchers write.

For the new study, the authors tracked 171 patients (26.3% women, median age 61 years, ethnicity not provided), mainly (87%) with stage III-IV disease. Most (89%) received concurrent chemotherapy, and 30% received radiotherapy following operations.

Four oncologists reviewed free-form radiologic reports and determined whether the patient had a complete, indeterminate or partial response, or progressive disease. “Next, the group conferred to assign a consensus clinician MDS [modified Deauville score] and associated response category to assess the percentage of agreement with the criterion standard nuclear medicine physician MDS response derived from PET/CT image review.”

The researchers found that “interrater reliability of clinician-perceived post-RT PET/CT response was moderate [k = 0.680; 95% confidence interval, 0.638-0.721], and there was minimal reliability and low rate of agreement between clinician perception and radiologist-intended PET/CT response [63.7%; k = 0.365; 95% CI, 0.251-0.478).”

The clinicians were more likely to perceive patients as having an indeterminate response (28.1%), compared with the radiologists (9.3%). “There were 16 instances of significant discordance: 7 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 1 to 2 and nuclear medicine MDS 3 to 4, and 9 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 3 to 4 and nuclear medicine MDS 1 to 2.”

Due to statistical limitations, the researchers were unable to link the MDS scores to prognoses. The researchers suggest it’s time to further standardize the assessment of posttreatment responses to therapy. They add that “the decision to use a standardized interpretation and reporting system rather than free-form reporting is more important than the specific system selected.”

As for next steps, the researchers report that “prospective studies of post-RT PET/CT standardized reporting among patients with HNSCC are warranted, and a prospective implementation study of this workflow is planned at our institution.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

Patient outcomes could be threatened because of misinterpretation by oncologic surgeons of free-form posttreatment radiological reports in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), a new study finds.

“Clinician perception of patient response from the post-RT [radiation treament] PET/CT free-form report is unreliable and does not consistently reflect the radiologist’s intended meaning, which was strongly associated with survival,” researchers wrote in a study published Aug. 18 in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery. They found “minimal agreement between clinicians’ consensus perspective on the patient’s response status derived from free-form imaging reports and the criterion standard response category assigned by a nuclear medicine specialist after PET/CT image review.”

According to radiation oncologist Ryan T. Hughes, MD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., it’s common for patients with HNSCC to get PET, CT, or PET/CT imaging following treatment in order to assess how patients responded. Accurate communication about the results is essential to determining next steps, they write.

However, they write, “to our knowledge there is no universally accepted standardized method for communicating results,” such as whether there’s been a complete or partial response. Discrepancies between a radiological posttreatment report and an oncologist’s perception of the findings “may contribute to unnecessary patient care complexities, including elevated patient anxiety, unnecessary follow-up testing/procedures, and failure to recognize and adequately treat residual, recurrent, or progressive disease,” the researchers write.

For the new study, the authors tracked 171 patients (26.3% women, median age 61 years, ethnicity not provided), mainly (87%) with stage III-IV disease. Most (89%) received concurrent chemotherapy, and 30% received radiotherapy following operations.

Four oncologists reviewed free-form radiologic reports and determined whether the patient had a complete, indeterminate or partial response, or progressive disease. “Next, the group conferred to assign a consensus clinician MDS [modified Deauville score] and associated response category to assess the percentage of agreement with the criterion standard nuclear medicine physician MDS response derived from PET/CT image review.”

The researchers found that “interrater reliability of clinician-perceived post-RT PET/CT response was moderate [k = 0.680; 95% confidence interval, 0.638-0.721], and there was minimal reliability and low rate of agreement between clinician perception and radiologist-intended PET/CT response [63.7%; k = 0.365; 95% CI, 0.251-0.478).”

The clinicians were more likely to perceive patients as having an indeterminate response (28.1%), compared with the radiologists (9.3%). “There were 16 instances of significant discordance: 7 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 1 to 2 and nuclear medicine MDS 3 to 4, and 9 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 3 to 4 and nuclear medicine MDS 1 to 2.”

Due to statistical limitations, the researchers were unable to link the MDS scores to prognoses. The researchers suggest it’s time to further standardize the assessment of posttreatment responses to therapy. They add that “the decision to use a standardized interpretation and reporting system rather than free-form reporting is more important than the specific system selected.”

As for next steps, the researchers report that “prospective studies of post-RT PET/CT standardized reporting among patients with HNSCC are warranted, and a prospective implementation study of this workflow is planned at our institution.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.