AVAHO

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Mary Lou McMaster, MD, has spent her entire career at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) searching for the genetic underpinnings that give rise to Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). 
After searching for decades, she has yet to uncover a "smoking gun," though a few tantalizing clues have emerged along the way. 
"Our questions are pretty basic: Why are some people more susceptible to developing WM, and why does WM sometimes cluster in families?" she explained. It turns out that the answers are not at all simple. 
Dr. McMaster described some of the clues that her team at the Clinical Genetics Branch of the NCI has unearthed in a presentation at the recent International Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia Foundation (IWMF) 2021 Virtual Educational Forum. 
Commenting after the presentation, Steven Treon, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, who is collaborating with Dr. McMaster on this work, said: "From these familial studies, we can learn how familial genomics may give us insights into disease prevention and treatment." 

Identifying affected families  

Work began in 2001 to identify families in which two or more family members had been diagnosed with WM or in which there was one patient with WM and at least one other relative with a related B-cell cancer, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 
For a frame of reference, they enrolled some families with only one member with WM and in which there was no known family history of the disease. 
"Overall, we have learned that familial WM is a rare disease but not nearly as rare as we first thought," Dr. McMaster said. 
For example, in a referral hospital setting, 5% of WM patients will report having a family member with the same disorder, and up to 20% of WM patients report having a family member with a related but different B-cell cancer, she noted. 
NCI researchers also discovered that environmental factors contribute to the development of WM. Notable chemical or occupational exposures include exposures to pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Infections and autoimmune disease are additional factors. 
"This was not a surprise," Dr. McMaster commented regarding the role of occupational exposures. The research community has known for decades that a "lymphoma belt" cuts through the Midwest farming states. 
Focusing on genetic susceptibility, Dr. McMaster and colleagues first tried to identify a rare germline variant that can be passed down to offspring and that might confer high risk for the disease. 
"We used our high-risk families to study these types of changes, although they may be modified by other genes and environmental factors," Dr. McMaster explained. 
Much to their collective disappointment, the research team has been unable to identify any rare germline variant that could account for WM in many families. What they did find were many small changes in genes that are known to be important in B-cell development and function, but all of those would lead to only a small increase in WM risk. 
"What is holding us back is that, so far, we are not seeing the same gene affected in more than one family, so this suggests to us either that this is not the mechanism behind the development of WM in families, or we have an unfortunate situation where each family is going to have a genetic change that is private to that family and which is not found in other families," Dr. McMaster acknowledged. 

Sheer difficulty  

Given the difficulty of determining whether these small genetic changes had any detrimental functional effect in each and every family with a member who had WM, Dr. McMaster and colleagues have now turned their attention to genes that exert only a small effect on disease risk. 
"Here, we focused on specific genes that we knew were important in the function of the immune system," she explained. "We did find a few genes that may contribute to risk, but those have not yet been confirmed by us or others, and we cannot say they are causative without that confirmation," she said. 
The team has gone on to scan the highway of our genetic material so as to isolate genetic "mile markers." They then examine the area around a particular marker that they suspect contains genes that may be involved in WM. 
One study they conducted involved a cohort of 217 patients with WM in which numerous family members had WM and so was enriched with susceptibility genes. A second cohort comprised 312 WM patients in which there were few WM cases among family members. Both of these cohorts were compared with a group of healthy control persons. 
From these genome studies, "we found there are at least two regions of the genome that can contribute to WM susceptibility, the largest effect being on the short arm of chromosome 6, and the other on the long arm of chromosome 14," Dr. McMaster reported. Dr. McMaster feels that there are probably more regions on the genome that also contribute to WM, although they do not yet understand how these regions contribute to susceptibility. 
"It's more evidence that WM likely results from a combination of events rather than one single gene variant," she observed. Dr. McMaster and colleagues are now collaborating with a large consortium of WM researchers to confirm and extend their findings. Plans are underway to analyze data from approximately 1,350 WM patients and more than 20,000 control persons within the next year. 
"Our hope is that we will confirm our original findings and, because we now have a much larger sample, we will be able to discover additional regions of the genome that are contributing to susceptibility," Dr. McMaster said. 
"A single gene is not likely to account for all WM, as we've looked carefully and others have looked too," she commented. 
"So the risk for WM depends on a combination of genes and environmental exposures and possibly lifestyle factors as well, although we still estimate that approximately 25% of the heritability of WM can be attributed to these kinds of genetic changes," Dr. McMaster predicted. 
Dr. McMaster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Treon has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Janssen, Pfizer, PCYC, and BioGene.  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Mary Lou McMaster, MD, has spent her entire career at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) searching for the genetic underpinnings that give rise to Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). 
After searching for decades, she has yet to uncover a "smoking gun," though a few tantalizing clues have emerged along the way. 
"Our questions are pretty basic: Why are some people more susceptible to developing WM, and why does WM sometimes cluster in families?" she explained. It turns out that the answers are not at all simple. 
Dr. McMaster described some of the clues that her team at the Clinical Genetics Branch of the NCI has unearthed in a presentation at the recent International Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia Foundation (IWMF) 2021 Virtual Educational Forum. 
Commenting after the presentation, Steven Treon, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, who is collaborating with Dr. McMaster on this work, said: "From these familial studies, we can learn how familial genomics may give us insights into disease prevention and treatment." 

Identifying affected families  

Work began in 2001 to identify families in which two or more family members had been diagnosed with WM or in which there was one patient with WM and at least one other relative with a related B-cell cancer, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 
For a frame of reference, they enrolled some families with only one member with WM and in which there was no known family history of the disease. 
"Overall, we have learned that familial WM is a rare disease but not nearly as rare as we first thought," Dr. McMaster said. 
For example, in a referral hospital setting, 5% of WM patients will report having a family member with the same disorder, and up to 20% of WM patients report having a family member with a related but different B-cell cancer, she noted. 
NCI researchers also discovered that environmental factors contribute to the development of WM. Notable chemical or occupational exposures include exposures to pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Infections and autoimmune disease are additional factors. 
"This was not a surprise," Dr. McMaster commented regarding the role of occupational exposures. The research community has known for decades that a "lymphoma belt" cuts through the Midwest farming states. 
Focusing on genetic susceptibility, Dr. McMaster and colleagues first tried to identify a rare germline variant that can be passed down to offspring and that might confer high risk for the disease. 
"We used our high-risk families to study these types of changes, although they may be modified by other genes and environmental factors," Dr. McMaster explained. 
Much to their collective disappointment, the research team has been unable to identify any rare germline variant that could account for WM in many families. What they did find were many small changes in genes that are known to be important in B-cell development and function, but all of those would lead to only a small increase in WM risk. 
"What is holding us back is that, so far, we are not seeing the same gene affected in more than one family, so this suggests to us either that this is not the mechanism behind the development of WM in families, or we have an unfortunate situation where each family is going to have a genetic change that is private to that family and which is not found in other families," Dr. McMaster acknowledged. 

Sheer difficulty  

Given the difficulty of determining whether these small genetic changes had any detrimental functional effect in each and every family with a member who had WM, Dr. McMaster and colleagues have now turned their attention to genes that exert only a small effect on disease risk. 
"Here, we focused on specific genes that we knew were important in the function of the immune system," she explained. "We did find a few genes that may contribute to risk, but those have not yet been confirmed by us or others, and we cannot say they are causative without that confirmation," she said. 
The team has gone on to scan the highway of our genetic material so as to isolate genetic "mile markers." They then examine the area around a particular marker that they suspect contains genes that may be involved in WM. 
One study they conducted involved a cohort of 217 patients with WM in which numerous family members had WM and so was enriched with susceptibility genes. A second cohort comprised 312 WM patients in which there were few WM cases among family members. Both of these cohorts were compared with a group of healthy control persons. 
From these genome studies, "we found there are at least two regions of the genome that can contribute to WM susceptibility, the largest effect being on the short arm of chromosome 6, and the other on the long arm of chromosome 14," Dr. McMaster reported. Dr. McMaster feels that there are probably more regions on the genome that also contribute to WM, although they do not yet understand how these regions contribute to susceptibility. 
"It's more evidence that WM likely results from a combination of events rather than one single gene variant," she observed. Dr. McMaster and colleagues are now collaborating with a large consortium of WM researchers to confirm and extend their findings. Plans are underway to analyze data from approximately 1,350 WM patients and more than 20,000 control persons within the next year. 
"Our hope is that we will confirm our original findings and, because we now have a much larger sample, we will be able to discover additional regions of the genome that are contributing to susceptibility," Dr. McMaster said. 
"A single gene is not likely to account for all WM, as we've looked carefully and others have looked too," she commented. 
"So the risk for WM depends on a combination of genes and environmental exposures and possibly lifestyle factors as well, although we still estimate that approximately 25% of the heritability of WM can be attributed to these kinds of genetic changes," Dr. McMaster predicted. 
Dr. McMaster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Treon has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Janssen, Pfizer, PCYC, and BioGene.  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Mary Lou McMaster, MD, has spent her entire career at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) searching for the genetic underpinnings that give rise to Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). 
After searching for decades, she has yet to uncover a "smoking gun," though a few tantalizing clues have emerged along the way. 
"Our questions are pretty basic: Why are some people more susceptible to developing WM, and why does WM sometimes cluster in families?" she explained. It turns out that the answers are not at all simple. 
Dr. McMaster described some of the clues that her team at the Clinical Genetics Branch of the NCI has unearthed in a presentation at the recent International Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia Foundation (IWMF) 2021 Virtual Educational Forum. 
Commenting after the presentation, Steven Treon, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, who is collaborating with Dr. McMaster on this work, said: "From these familial studies, we can learn how familial genomics may give us insights into disease prevention and treatment." 

Identifying affected families  

Work began in 2001 to identify families in which two or more family members had been diagnosed with WM or in which there was one patient with WM and at least one other relative with a related B-cell cancer, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 
For a frame of reference, they enrolled some families with only one member with WM and in which there was no known family history of the disease. 
"Overall, we have learned that familial WM is a rare disease but not nearly as rare as we first thought," Dr. McMaster said. 
For example, in a referral hospital setting, 5% of WM patients will report having a family member with the same disorder, and up to 20% of WM patients report having a family member with a related but different B-cell cancer, she noted. 
NCI researchers also discovered that environmental factors contribute to the development of WM. Notable chemical or occupational exposures include exposures to pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Infections and autoimmune disease are additional factors. 
"This was not a surprise," Dr. McMaster commented regarding the role of occupational exposures. The research community has known for decades that a "lymphoma belt" cuts through the Midwest farming states. 
Focusing on genetic susceptibility, Dr. McMaster and colleagues first tried to identify a rare germline variant that can be passed down to offspring and that might confer high risk for the disease. 
"We used our high-risk families to study these types of changes, although they may be modified by other genes and environmental factors," Dr. McMaster explained. 
Much to their collective disappointment, the research team has been unable to identify any rare germline variant that could account for WM in many families. What they did find were many small changes in genes that are known to be important in B-cell development and function, but all of those would lead to only a small increase in WM risk. 
"What is holding us back is that, so far, we are not seeing the same gene affected in more than one family, so this suggests to us either that this is not the mechanism behind the development of WM in families, or we have an unfortunate situation where each family is going to have a genetic change that is private to that family and which is not found in other families," Dr. McMaster acknowledged. 

Sheer difficulty  

Given the difficulty of determining whether these small genetic changes had any detrimental functional effect in each and every family with a member who had WM, Dr. McMaster and colleagues have now turned their attention to genes that exert only a small effect on disease risk. 
"Here, we focused on specific genes that we knew were important in the function of the immune system," she explained. "We did find a few genes that may contribute to risk, but those have not yet been confirmed by us or others, and we cannot say they are causative without that confirmation," she said. 
The team has gone on to scan the highway of our genetic material so as to isolate genetic "mile markers." They then examine the area around a particular marker that they suspect contains genes that may be involved in WM. 
One study they conducted involved a cohort of 217 patients with WM in which numerous family members had WM and so was enriched with susceptibility genes. A second cohort comprised 312 WM patients in which there were few WM cases among family members. Both of these cohorts were compared with a group of healthy control persons. 
From these genome studies, "we found there are at least two regions of the genome that can contribute to WM susceptibility, the largest effect being on the short arm of chromosome 6, and the other on the long arm of chromosome 14," Dr. McMaster reported. Dr. McMaster feels that there are probably more regions on the genome that also contribute to WM, although they do not yet understand how these regions contribute to susceptibility. 
"It's more evidence that WM likely results from a combination of events rather than one single gene variant," she observed. Dr. McMaster and colleagues are now collaborating with a large consortium of WM researchers to confirm and extend their findings. Plans are underway to analyze data from approximately 1,350 WM patients and more than 20,000 control persons within the next year. 
"Our hope is that we will confirm our original findings and, because we now have a much larger sample, we will be able to discover additional regions of the genome that are contributing to susceptibility," Dr. McMaster said. 
"A single gene is not likely to account for all WM, as we've looked carefully and others have looked too," she commented. 
"So the risk for WM depends on a combination of genes and environmental exposures and possibly lifestyle factors as well, although we still estimate that approximately 25% of the heritability of WM can be attributed to these kinds of genetic changes," Dr. McMaster predicted. 
Dr. McMaster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Treon has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Janssen, Pfizer, PCYC, and BioGene.  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

New data from England show the success of the national program for vaccinating girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer.

Among young women who received the HPV vaccine when they were 12-13 years old (before their sexual debut), cervical cancer rates are 87% lower than among previous nonvaccinated generations.

“It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding.”

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, U.K. Health Security Agency, London, commented in a statement.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the U.K. Health Security Agency, agreed, saying that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she added.

The study was published online Nov. 3, 2021, in The Lancet.

Approached for comment on the new study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, noted that the results of the English study are very similar to those of a Swedish study of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. He said that, as an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years, particularly patients with advanced cervical cancer, “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful.

“I can only emphasize the critical importance of all parents to see that their children who are eligible for the vaccine receive it. This is a cancer prevention strategy that is unbelievably, remarkably effective and safe,” Dr. Markman added.
 

National vaccination program

The national HPV vaccination program in England began in 2008. Initially, the bivalent Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 was used. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% to 80% of all cervical cancers in England, the researchers note in their article.

In 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), which is effective against two additional HPV types, HPV 6 and 11. Those strains cause genital warts.

The prevention program originally recommended a three-dose regimen in which both HPV vaccines were used. Currently, two doses are given to girls younger than 15 years. In addition, a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection. The efficacy rate of a single dose is similar to that of three doses, the authors comment.
 

Population-based registry

The new data come from a population-based cancer registry that shows the incidence of cervical cancer and noninvasive cervical carcinoma (CIN3) in England between January 2006 and June 2019.

The study included seven cohorts of women who were aged 20-64 years at the end of 2019. Three of these cohorts composed the vaccinated population.

The team reports that overall, from January 2006 to June 2019, there were 27,946 cases of cervical cancer and 318,058 cases of CIN3.

In the three vaccinated cohorts, there were around 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would be expected in a nonvaccinated population.

The three vaccinated cohorts had been eligible to receive Cervarix when they were aged 12-13 years. A catch-up scheme aimed at 14- to 16-year-olds and 16- to 18-year-olds. Most of these persons were vaccinated through a school vaccination program.

The team analyzed the data for each of these cohorts.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12-13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine; 85% received three shots and were fully vaccinated. Among these persons, the rate of cervical cancer was 87% lower than expected in a nonvaccinated population, and the rate of CIN3 was 97% lower than expected.

For the cohort that was eligible to be vaccinated between the ages of 14 and 16 years, the corresponding reductions were 62% for cervical cancer and 75% for CIN3.

For the cohort eligible for vaccination between the ages of 16 and 18 years (of whom 60% had received at least one dose and 45% were fully vaccinated), the corresponding reduction were 34% for cervical cancer and 39% for CIN3.

The authors acknowledge some limitations with the study, principally that cervical cancer is rare in young women, and these vaccinated populations are still young. The youngest would have been vaccinated at age 12 in 2008 and so would be only 23 years old in 2019, when the follow-up in this current study ended. The authors emphasize that because the vaccinated populations are still young, it is too early to assess the full impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.
 

Editorial commentary

“The relative reductions in cervical cancer, expected as a result of the HPV vaccination program, support the anticipated vaccine effectiveness,” commented two authors of an accompanying editorial, Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania.

“The scale of the HPV vaccination effect reported by this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low-income and middle-income countries where the problem of cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than in those with well established systems of vaccination and screening,” they comment.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept the vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO [World Health Organization].”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Markman is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income of $250 or more from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

New data from England show the success of the national program for vaccinating girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer.

Among young women who received the HPV vaccine when they were 12-13 years old (before their sexual debut), cervical cancer rates are 87% lower than among previous nonvaccinated generations.

“It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding.”

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, U.K. Health Security Agency, London, commented in a statement.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the U.K. Health Security Agency, agreed, saying that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she added.

The study was published online Nov. 3, 2021, in The Lancet.

Approached for comment on the new study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, noted that the results of the English study are very similar to those of a Swedish study of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. He said that, as an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years, particularly patients with advanced cervical cancer, “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful.

“I can only emphasize the critical importance of all parents to see that their children who are eligible for the vaccine receive it. This is a cancer prevention strategy that is unbelievably, remarkably effective and safe,” Dr. Markman added.
 

National vaccination program

The national HPV vaccination program in England began in 2008. Initially, the bivalent Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 was used. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% to 80% of all cervical cancers in England, the researchers note in their article.

In 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), which is effective against two additional HPV types, HPV 6 and 11. Those strains cause genital warts.

The prevention program originally recommended a three-dose regimen in which both HPV vaccines were used. Currently, two doses are given to girls younger than 15 years. In addition, a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection. The efficacy rate of a single dose is similar to that of three doses, the authors comment.
 

Population-based registry

The new data come from a population-based cancer registry that shows the incidence of cervical cancer and noninvasive cervical carcinoma (CIN3) in England between January 2006 and June 2019.

The study included seven cohorts of women who were aged 20-64 years at the end of 2019. Three of these cohorts composed the vaccinated population.

The team reports that overall, from January 2006 to June 2019, there were 27,946 cases of cervical cancer and 318,058 cases of CIN3.

In the three vaccinated cohorts, there were around 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would be expected in a nonvaccinated population.

The three vaccinated cohorts had been eligible to receive Cervarix when they were aged 12-13 years. A catch-up scheme aimed at 14- to 16-year-olds and 16- to 18-year-olds. Most of these persons were vaccinated through a school vaccination program.

The team analyzed the data for each of these cohorts.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12-13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine; 85% received three shots and were fully vaccinated. Among these persons, the rate of cervical cancer was 87% lower than expected in a nonvaccinated population, and the rate of CIN3 was 97% lower than expected.

For the cohort that was eligible to be vaccinated between the ages of 14 and 16 years, the corresponding reductions were 62% for cervical cancer and 75% for CIN3.

For the cohort eligible for vaccination between the ages of 16 and 18 years (of whom 60% had received at least one dose and 45% were fully vaccinated), the corresponding reduction were 34% for cervical cancer and 39% for CIN3.

The authors acknowledge some limitations with the study, principally that cervical cancer is rare in young women, and these vaccinated populations are still young. The youngest would have been vaccinated at age 12 in 2008 and so would be only 23 years old in 2019, when the follow-up in this current study ended. The authors emphasize that because the vaccinated populations are still young, it is too early to assess the full impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.
 

Editorial commentary

“The relative reductions in cervical cancer, expected as a result of the HPV vaccination program, support the anticipated vaccine effectiveness,” commented two authors of an accompanying editorial, Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania.

“The scale of the HPV vaccination effect reported by this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low-income and middle-income countries where the problem of cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than in those with well established systems of vaccination and screening,” they comment.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept the vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO [World Health Organization].”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Markman is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income of $250 or more from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

New data from England show the success of the national program for vaccinating girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer.

Among young women who received the HPV vaccine when they were 12-13 years old (before their sexual debut), cervical cancer rates are 87% lower than among previous nonvaccinated generations.

“It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding.”

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, U.K. Health Security Agency, London, commented in a statement.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the U.K. Health Security Agency, agreed, saying that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she added.

The study was published online Nov. 3, 2021, in The Lancet.

Approached for comment on the new study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, noted that the results of the English study are very similar to those of a Swedish study of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. He said that, as an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years, particularly patients with advanced cervical cancer, “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful.

“I can only emphasize the critical importance of all parents to see that their children who are eligible for the vaccine receive it. This is a cancer prevention strategy that is unbelievably, remarkably effective and safe,” Dr. Markman added.
 

National vaccination program

The national HPV vaccination program in England began in 2008. Initially, the bivalent Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 was used. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% to 80% of all cervical cancers in England, the researchers note in their article.

In 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), which is effective against two additional HPV types, HPV 6 and 11. Those strains cause genital warts.

The prevention program originally recommended a three-dose regimen in which both HPV vaccines were used. Currently, two doses are given to girls younger than 15 years. In addition, a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection. The efficacy rate of a single dose is similar to that of three doses, the authors comment.
 

Population-based registry

The new data come from a population-based cancer registry that shows the incidence of cervical cancer and noninvasive cervical carcinoma (CIN3) in England between January 2006 and June 2019.

The study included seven cohorts of women who were aged 20-64 years at the end of 2019. Three of these cohorts composed the vaccinated population.

The team reports that overall, from January 2006 to June 2019, there were 27,946 cases of cervical cancer and 318,058 cases of CIN3.

In the three vaccinated cohorts, there were around 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would be expected in a nonvaccinated population.

The three vaccinated cohorts had been eligible to receive Cervarix when they were aged 12-13 years. A catch-up scheme aimed at 14- to 16-year-olds and 16- to 18-year-olds. Most of these persons were vaccinated through a school vaccination program.

The team analyzed the data for each of these cohorts.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12-13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine; 85% received three shots and were fully vaccinated. Among these persons, the rate of cervical cancer was 87% lower than expected in a nonvaccinated population, and the rate of CIN3 was 97% lower than expected.

For the cohort that was eligible to be vaccinated between the ages of 14 and 16 years, the corresponding reductions were 62% for cervical cancer and 75% for CIN3.

For the cohort eligible for vaccination between the ages of 16 and 18 years (of whom 60% had received at least one dose and 45% were fully vaccinated), the corresponding reduction were 34% for cervical cancer and 39% for CIN3.

The authors acknowledge some limitations with the study, principally that cervical cancer is rare in young women, and these vaccinated populations are still young. The youngest would have been vaccinated at age 12 in 2008 and so would be only 23 years old in 2019, when the follow-up in this current study ended. The authors emphasize that because the vaccinated populations are still young, it is too early to assess the full impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.
 

Editorial commentary

“The relative reductions in cervical cancer, expected as a result of the HPV vaccination program, support the anticipated vaccine effectiveness,” commented two authors of an accompanying editorial, Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania.

“The scale of the HPV vaccination effect reported by this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low-income and middle-income countries where the problem of cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than in those with well established systems of vaccination and screening,” they comment.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept the vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO [World Health Organization].”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Markman is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income of $250 or more from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

In Australia, where they know a thing or two about skin cancer, authors of a large prospective population-based cohort study found that melanomas detected through routine skin checks were associated with lower all-cause mortality, but not melanoma-specific mortality.

Among patients in New South Wales diagnosed with melanoma in 2006 or 2007 and followed for nearly 12 years, there was no significant difference in the rate of melanoma-specific death associated with either patient-detected or clinician-detected melanomas in an analysis adjusted for prognostic factors.

Although melanomas found through routine clinician-performed skin checks were associated with a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with patient-detected lesions (P = .006), this difference may have been due to the tendency of health-oriented patients to participate in screening programs.

The study – one of the largest to date and performed in an area of the world where there is a high incidence of skin cancer and high degree of public awareness of the risks of too much sun exposure – could not fully answer its central question: Can routine skin checks, a proxy for skin cancer screening, significantly decrease the incidence of melanoma-related deaths?

“A large randomized clinical trial is needed to provide definitive evidence that screening for skin cancer reduces melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality among people invited (vs. not invited) to screen, but there are concerns about feasibility. Our findings could be used to estimate the sample size for a future trial,” wrote Caroline G. Watts, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Their study was published online Nov. 3 in JAMA Dermatology.

In an editorial accompanying the study, dermatologists Allan C. Halpern, MD, and Michael A. Marchetti, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, point out that “there has never been a randomized clinical trial of melanoma screening, nor is there one currently ongoing or planned. Even if one were to be initiated immediately, such a trial would take well over a decade to conduct.

“Thus, for the foreseeable future, our approaches to melanoma secondary prevention need to be based on indirect evidence and our understanding of biology and epidemiology,” they wrote.

A dermatology researcher who was not involved in the study said that while it doesn’t solve the screening conundrum, it does highlight the value of public health campaigns.

“The way that I interpret the data, especially the fact that it’s coming out of Australia, is that if education about self-examination is done properly, that can also be effective in terms of detecting these skin cancers,” said Shawn Demehri, MD, PhD, principal investigator at the Cutaneous Biology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Demehri was asked to comment on the study.

“I would argue that the results would probably have been different if the study had been conducted in the U.S. rather than Australia, because the education in terms of self-examination is much more advanced and organized in Australia,” he said in an interview.

Study details

To assess melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality associated with melanoma identified through routine skin checks, Dr. Watts and colleagues followed patients diagnosed with melanoma from October 2006 through October 2007 who were enrolled in the Melanoma Patterns of Care Study. The patients were followed until 2018 (mean follow-up 11.9 years).

Of the 2,452 patients for whom data were available, 291 had an initial diagnosis of primary melanoma in situ (MIS), and 2,161 were diagnosed with invasive cutaneous melanoma.

The median age at diagnosis was 65 years, ranging from 16 to 98 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients (61%) were men.

Among all patients, 858 (35%) had melanoma detected during a routine skin check, 1,148 (47%) detected the lesions themselves, 293 (12%) had incidentally-detected melanomas, and 153 (6%) had lesions detected by other, unspecified means.

In analyses adjusted for age and sex, the investigators found that compared with patient-detected lesions, melanomas detected during routine skin checks were associated with a 59% lower risk for melanoma-specific mortality (subhazard ratio, 0.41, P < .001) and 36% lower risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.64, P < .001).

But after adjustment for melanoma prognostic factors such as ulceration and mitotic rate, the association of skin check–detected lesions with melanoma-specific mortality was no longer statistically significant. The association with lower all-cause mortality was somewhat attenuated, but remained significant (HR, 0.75, P = .006).

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of melanoma detection during routine skin checks included males vs. females, a history of melanoma, having multiple moles, age 50 or older, and residence in a urban vs. rural areas.
 

Screen with care

In their editorial, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Marchetti propose methods for screening that find a balance between detection of significant disease and potential harm to patients from unnecessary biopsy or invasive procedures.

“For many lesions, we could use serial photography and dermoscopy in lieu of tissue biopsy to identify those that are truly dynamic outliers and likely to be of greater risk to the patient. An analogous approach is already used for the management of small lung nodules detected incidentally and through screening,” they wrote.

They also raise the issue of potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of MIS, and recommend an approach similar to that used for some older patients with prostate cancer, for example.

“The consequences of MIS treatment differ greatly based on the type, anatomic location, and size of the tumor; these factors should be considered in shared decision-making with patients. Options such as active surveillance and topical therapy should be discussed, particularly in those with significant comorbidities or advanced age,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Institute New South Wales, and the New South Wales State Government. Dr. Watts, Dr. Halpern, Dr. Marchetti, and Dr. Demehri reported having no conflicts of interest.

In Australia, where they know a thing or two about skin cancer, authors of a large prospective population-based cohort study found that melanomas detected through routine skin checks were associated with lower all-cause mortality, but not melanoma-specific mortality.

Among patients in New South Wales diagnosed with melanoma in 2006 or 2007 and followed for nearly 12 years, there was no significant difference in the rate of melanoma-specific death associated with either patient-detected or clinician-detected melanomas in an analysis adjusted for prognostic factors.

Although melanomas found through routine clinician-performed skin checks were associated with a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with patient-detected lesions (P = .006), this difference may have been due to the tendency of health-oriented patients to participate in screening programs.

The study – one of the largest to date and performed in an area of the world where there is a high incidence of skin cancer and high degree of public awareness of the risks of too much sun exposure – could not fully answer its central question: Can routine skin checks, a proxy for skin cancer screening, significantly decrease the incidence of melanoma-related deaths?

“A large randomized clinical trial is needed to provide definitive evidence that screening for skin cancer reduces melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality among people invited (vs. not invited) to screen, but there are concerns about feasibility. Our findings could be used to estimate the sample size for a future trial,” wrote Caroline G. Watts, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Their study was published online Nov. 3 in JAMA Dermatology.

In an editorial accompanying the study, dermatologists Allan C. Halpern, MD, and Michael A. Marchetti, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, point out that “there has never been a randomized clinical trial of melanoma screening, nor is there one currently ongoing or planned. Even if one were to be initiated immediately, such a trial would take well over a decade to conduct.

“Thus, for the foreseeable future, our approaches to melanoma secondary prevention need to be based on indirect evidence and our understanding of biology and epidemiology,” they wrote.

A dermatology researcher who was not involved in the study said that while it doesn’t solve the screening conundrum, it does highlight the value of public health campaigns.

“The way that I interpret the data, especially the fact that it’s coming out of Australia, is that if education about self-examination is done properly, that can also be effective in terms of detecting these skin cancers,” said Shawn Demehri, MD, PhD, principal investigator at the Cutaneous Biology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Demehri was asked to comment on the study.

“I would argue that the results would probably have been different if the study had been conducted in the U.S. rather than Australia, because the education in terms of self-examination is much more advanced and organized in Australia,” he said in an interview.

Study details

To assess melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality associated with melanoma identified through routine skin checks, Dr. Watts and colleagues followed patients diagnosed with melanoma from October 2006 through October 2007 who were enrolled in the Melanoma Patterns of Care Study. The patients were followed until 2018 (mean follow-up 11.9 years).

Of the 2,452 patients for whom data were available, 291 had an initial diagnosis of primary melanoma in situ (MIS), and 2,161 were diagnosed with invasive cutaneous melanoma.

The median age at diagnosis was 65 years, ranging from 16 to 98 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients (61%) were men.

Among all patients, 858 (35%) had melanoma detected during a routine skin check, 1,148 (47%) detected the lesions themselves, 293 (12%) had incidentally-detected melanomas, and 153 (6%) had lesions detected by other, unspecified means.

In analyses adjusted for age and sex, the investigators found that compared with patient-detected lesions, melanomas detected during routine skin checks were associated with a 59% lower risk for melanoma-specific mortality (subhazard ratio, 0.41, P < .001) and 36% lower risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.64, P < .001).

But after adjustment for melanoma prognostic factors such as ulceration and mitotic rate, the association of skin check–detected lesions with melanoma-specific mortality was no longer statistically significant. The association with lower all-cause mortality was somewhat attenuated, but remained significant (HR, 0.75, P = .006).

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of melanoma detection during routine skin checks included males vs. females, a history of melanoma, having multiple moles, age 50 or older, and residence in a urban vs. rural areas.
 

Screen with care

In their editorial, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Marchetti propose methods for screening that find a balance between detection of significant disease and potential harm to patients from unnecessary biopsy or invasive procedures.

“For many lesions, we could use serial photography and dermoscopy in lieu of tissue biopsy to identify those that are truly dynamic outliers and likely to be of greater risk to the patient. An analogous approach is already used for the management of small lung nodules detected incidentally and through screening,” they wrote.

They also raise the issue of potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of MIS, and recommend an approach similar to that used for some older patients with prostate cancer, for example.

“The consequences of MIS treatment differ greatly based on the type, anatomic location, and size of the tumor; these factors should be considered in shared decision-making with patients. Options such as active surveillance and topical therapy should be discussed, particularly in those with significant comorbidities or advanced age,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Institute New South Wales, and the New South Wales State Government. Dr. Watts, Dr. Halpern, Dr. Marchetti, and Dr. Demehri reported having no conflicts of interest.

In Australia, where they know a thing or two about skin cancer, authors of a large prospective population-based cohort study found that melanomas detected through routine skin checks were associated with lower all-cause mortality, but not melanoma-specific mortality.

Among patients in New South Wales diagnosed with melanoma in 2006 or 2007 and followed for nearly 12 years, there was no significant difference in the rate of melanoma-specific death associated with either patient-detected or clinician-detected melanomas in an analysis adjusted for prognostic factors.

Although melanomas found through routine clinician-performed skin checks were associated with a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with patient-detected lesions (P = .006), this difference may have been due to the tendency of health-oriented patients to participate in screening programs.

The study – one of the largest to date and performed in an area of the world where there is a high incidence of skin cancer and high degree of public awareness of the risks of too much sun exposure – could not fully answer its central question: Can routine skin checks, a proxy for skin cancer screening, significantly decrease the incidence of melanoma-related deaths?

“A large randomized clinical trial is needed to provide definitive evidence that screening for skin cancer reduces melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality among people invited (vs. not invited) to screen, but there are concerns about feasibility. Our findings could be used to estimate the sample size for a future trial,” wrote Caroline G. Watts, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Their study was published online Nov. 3 in JAMA Dermatology.

In an editorial accompanying the study, dermatologists Allan C. Halpern, MD, and Michael A. Marchetti, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, point out that “there has never been a randomized clinical trial of melanoma screening, nor is there one currently ongoing or planned. Even if one were to be initiated immediately, such a trial would take well over a decade to conduct.

“Thus, for the foreseeable future, our approaches to melanoma secondary prevention need to be based on indirect evidence and our understanding of biology and epidemiology,” they wrote.

A dermatology researcher who was not involved in the study said that while it doesn’t solve the screening conundrum, it does highlight the value of public health campaigns.

“The way that I interpret the data, especially the fact that it’s coming out of Australia, is that if education about self-examination is done properly, that can also be effective in terms of detecting these skin cancers,” said Shawn Demehri, MD, PhD, principal investigator at the Cutaneous Biology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Demehri was asked to comment on the study.

“I would argue that the results would probably have been different if the study had been conducted in the U.S. rather than Australia, because the education in terms of self-examination is much more advanced and organized in Australia,” he said in an interview.

Study details

To assess melanoma-specific and all-cause mortality associated with melanoma identified through routine skin checks, Dr. Watts and colleagues followed patients diagnosed with melanoma from October 2006 through October 2007 who were enrolled in the Melanoma Patterns of Care Study. The patients were followed until 2018 (mean follow-up 11.9 years).

Of the 2,452 patients for whom data were available, 291 had an initial diagnosis of primary melanoma in situ (MIS), and 2,161 were diagnosed with invasive cutaneous melanoma.

The median age at diagnosis was 65 years, ranging from 16 to 98 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients (61%) were men.

Among all patients, 858 (35%) had melanoma detected during a routine skin check, 1,148 (47%) detected the lesions themselves, 293 (12%) had incidentally-detected melanomas, and 153 (6%) had lesions detected by other, unspecified means.

In analyses adjusted for age and sex, the investigators found that compared with patient-detected lesions, melanomas detected during routine skin checks were associated with a 59% lower risk for melanoma-specific mortality (subhazard ratio, 0.41, P < .001) and 36% lower risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.64, P < .001).

But after adjustment for melanoma prognostic factors such as ulceration and mitotic rate, the association of skin check–detected lesions with melanoma-specific mortality was no longer statistically significant. The association with lower all-cause mortality was somewhat attenuated, but remained significant (HR, 0.75, P = .006).

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of melanoma detection during routine skin checks included males vs. females, a history of melanoma, having multiple moles, age 50 or older, and residence in a urban vs. rural areas.
 

Screen with care

In their editorial, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Marchetti propose methods for screening that find a balance between detection of significant disease and potential harm to patients from unnecessary biopsy or invasive procedures.

“For many lesions, we could use serial photography and dermoscopy in lieu of tissue biopsy to identify those that are truly dynamic outliers and likely to be of greater risk to the patient. An analogous approach is already used for the management of small lung nodules detected incidentally and through screening,” they wrote.

They also raise the issue of potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of MIS, and recommend an approach similar to that used for some older patients with prostate cancer, for example.

“The consequences of MIS treatment differ greatly based on the type, anatomic location, and size of the tumor; these factors should be considered in shared decision-making with patients. Options such as active surveillance and topical therapy should be discussed, particularly in those with significant comorbidities or advanced age,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Institute New South Wales, and the New South Wales State Government. Dr. Watts, Dr. Halpern, Dr. Marchetti, and Dr. Demehri reported having no conflicts of interest.

In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates and targeted agents are being added to the potential treatment options for this incurable condition, which has a limited life expectancy. This is according to a review of the recent therapeutic advances and ongoing clinical trials in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Survival in the metastatic setting is 12-15 months with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy, but only 3-6 months if left untreated,” wrote Srikala S. Sridhar, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues. Their report is in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. “More recently, with the advent of immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted agents, the treatment landscape has changed significantly, with overall survival now approaching two years.”

Both the incidence and mortality from bladder cancer have risen over the past few decades. Around 5% of patients are metastatic at presentation, but nearly half of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer will eventually relapse and develop metastatic disease.

For first-line treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains the preferred option with response rates up to 72%, but durability is an issue with most patients experiencing disease progression. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease, who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1, or patients who are not eligible for any platinum-based regimen regardless of PD-L1 status, the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and pembrolizumab have received accelerated Food and Drug administration approval. More recently, pembrolizumab gained full FDA approval for use in patients not eligible to receive platinum-based chemotherapy.

While phase 3 studies are evaluating chemotherapy combined with atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, the results have not been promising. Moreover, the decreased survival observed in the immunotherapy-alone arms of these trials led the FDA to issue a warning that single agent immunotherapy should be used only in patients who are not eligible for cisplatin-based therapy and have PD-L1 expression, or in those not eligible for any platinum-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“More intensive treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma is not always better,” the authors wrote. “Some of the reasons for this could be that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are targeting a similar population of cells, or that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are antagonistic on some level.”

Maintenance strategies are considered standard of care for other advanced solid tumors. In patients with bladder cancer without disease progression after a first line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance avelumab, an anti PD-L1, has shown an overall survival of 21.4 months versus 14.3 months with best supportive care, a finding that the authors described as “practice changing.” Meanwhile, a separate trial showed increased progression-free survival with maintenance pembrolizumab, but no increased overall survival.

For second-line treatment, immunotherapy is currently the standard of care in patients with disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. While the efficiency of five anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies has been reported in the second-line setting, pembrolizumab is the only immune checkpoint inhibitor to receive full FDA approval. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, and durvalumab have received accelerated approval.

“In urothelial carcinomas, PD-1 appears to have an advantage over anti PD-L1 in the second-line setting, but in the maintenance setting, it seems to be the opposite,” the authors wrote.

Erdafitinib is the only fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy. The oral potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR 1-4 is approved for use only in patients with susceptible FGFR3 gene mutations or FGFR2/3 gene fusions. Despite being approved for second-line treatment, erdafitinib is used mainly in third-line treatment after progression on immunotherapy. 

The antibody drug conjugates sacituzumab govitecan and enfortumab vedotin, which have gained accelerated FDA approval, provide other options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma resistant to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors. As these antibody drug conjugates have different mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles, they could be used in the same patient throughout the disease course, but further research is needed. Meanwhile, many chemotherapy options, including docetaxel, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, and pemetrexed, have been tested in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with some response after platinum-based treatment.

“A number of studies evaluating promising therapeutic strategies are still ongoing and will hopefully provide information for some important unanswered questions and further guide treatment sequencing in advanced urothelial carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

They declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates and targeted agents are being added to the potential treatment options for this incurable condition, which has a limited life expectancy. This is according to a review of the recent therapeutic advances and ongoing clinical trials in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Survival in the metastatic setting is 12-15 months with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy, but only 3-6 months if left untreated,” wrote Srikala S. Sridhar, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues. Their report is in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. “More recently, with the advent of immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted agents, the treatment landscape has changed significantly, with overall survival now approaching two years.”

Both the incidence and mortality from bladder cancer have risen over the past few decades. Around 5% of patients are metastatic at presentation, but nearly half of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer will eventually relapse and develop metastatic disease.

For first-line treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains the preferred option with response rates up to 72%, but durability is an issue with most patients experiencing disease progression. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease, who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1, or patients who are not eligible for any platinum-based regimen regardless of PD-L1 status, the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and pembrolizumab have received accelerated Food and Drug administration approval. More recently, pembrolizumab gained full FDA approval for use in patients not eligible to receive platinum-based chemotherapy.

While phase 3 studies are evaluating chemotherapy combined with atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, the results have not been promising. Moreover, the decreased survival observed in the immunotherapy-alone arms of these trials led the FDA to issue a warning that single agent immunotherapy should be used only in patients who are not eligible for cisplatin-based therapy and have PD-L1 expression, or in those not eligible for any platinum-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“More intensive treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma is not always better,” the authors wrote. “Some of the reasons for this could be that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are targeting a similar population of cells, or that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are antagonistic on some level.”

Maintenance strategies are considered standard of care for other advanced solid tumors. In patients with bladder cancer without disease progression after a first line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance avelumab, an anti PD-L1, has shown an overall survival of 21.4 months versus 14.3 months with best supportive care, a finding that the authors described as “practice changing.” Meanwhile, a separate trial showed increased progression-free survival with maintenance pembrolizumab, but no increased overall survival.

For second-line treatment, immunotherapy is currently the standard of care in patients with disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. While the efficiency of five anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies has been reported in the second-line setting, pembrolizumab is the only immune checkpoint inhibitor to receive full FDA approval. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, and durvalumab have received accelerated approval.

“In urothelial carcinomas, PD-1 appears to have an advantage over anti PD-L1 in the second-line setting, but in the maintenance setting, it seems to be the opposite,” the authors wrote.

Erdafitinib is the only fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy. The oral potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR 1-4 is approved for use only in patients with susceptible FGFR3 gene mutations or FGFR2/3 gene fusions. Despite being approved for second-line treatment, erdafitinib is used mainly in third-line treatment after progression on immunotherapy. 

The antibody drug conjugates sacituzumab govitecan and enfortumab vedotin, which have gained accelerated FDA approval, provide other options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma resistant to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors. As these antibody drug conjugates have different mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles, they could be used in the same patient throughout the disease course, but further research is needed. Meanwhile, many chemotherapy options, including docetaxel, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, and pemetrexed, have been tested in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with some response after platinum-based treatment.

“A number of studies evaluating promising therapeutic strategies are still ongoing and will hopefully provide information for some important unanswered questions and further guide treatment sequencing in advanced urothelial carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

They declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates and targeted agents are being added to the potential treatment options for this incurable condition, which has a limited life expectancy. This is according to a review of the recent therapeutic advances and ongoing clinical trials in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Survival in the metastatic setting is 12-15 months with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy, but only 3-6 months if left untreated,” wrote Srikala S. Sridhar, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues. Their report is in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. “More recently, with the advent of immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted agents, the treatment landscape has changed significantly, with overall survival now approaching two years.”

Both the incidence and mortality from bladder cancer have risen over the past few decades. Around 5% of patients are metastatic at presentation, but nearly half of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer will eventually relapse and develop metastatic disease.

For first-line treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains the preferred option with response rates up to 72%, but durability is an issue with most patients experiencing disease progression. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease, who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1, or patients who are not eligible for any platinum-based regimen regardless of PD-L1 status, the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and pembrolizumab have received accelerated Food and Drug administration approval. More recently, pembrolizumab gained full FDA approval for use in patients not eligible to receive platinum-based chemotherapy.

While phase 3 studies are evaluating chemotherapy combined with atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, the results have not been promising. Moreover, the decreased survival observed in the immunotherapy-alone arms of these trials led the FDA to issue a warning that single agent immunotherapy should be used only in patients who are not eligible for cisplatin-based therapy and have PD-L1 expression, or in those not eligible for any platinum-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“More intensive treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma is not always better,” the authors wrote. “Some of the reasons for this could be that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are targeting a similar population of cells, or that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are antagonistic on some level.”

Maintenance strategies are considered standard of care for other advanced solid tumors. In patients with bladder cancer without disease progression after a first line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance avelumab, an anti PD-L1, has shown an overall survival of 21.4 months versus 14.3 months with best supportive care, a finding that the authors described as “practice changing.” Meanwhile, a separate trial showed increased progression-free survival with maintenance pembrolizumab, but no increased overall survival.

For second-line treatment, immunotherapy is currently the standard of care in patients with disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. While the efficiency of five anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies has been reported in the second-line setting, pembrolizumab is the only immune checkpoint inhibitor to receive full FDA approval. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, and durvalumab have received accelerated approval.

“In urothelial carcinomas, PD-1 appears to have an advantage over anti PD-L1 in the second-line setting, but in the maintenance setting, it seems to be the opposite,” the authors wrote.

Erdafitinib is the only fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy. The oral potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR 1-4 is approved for use only in patients with susceptible FGFR3 gene mutations or FGFR2/3 gene fusions. Despite being approved for second-line treatment, erdafitinib is used mainly in third-line treatment after progression on immunotherapy. 

The antibody drug conjugates sacituzumab govitecan and enfortumab vedotin, which have gained accelerated FDA approval, provide other options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma resistant to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors. As these antibody drug conjugates have different mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles, they could be used in the same patient throughout the disease course, but further research is needed. Meanwhile, many chemotherapy options, including docetaxel, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, and pemetrexed, have been tested in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with some response after platinum-based treatment.

“A number of studies evaluating promising therapeutic strategies are still ongoing and will hopefully provide information for some important unanswered questions and further guide treatment sequencing in advanced urothelial carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

They declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

Researchers writing in the British Journal of Dermatology confirm the long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide is associated with a dose-dependent, twofold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, compared with calcium channel blocker use.

The findings were originally reported in two Danish case-control studies in which physicians reported a fourfold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and a moderate increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma in patients who used hydrochlorothiazide long-term.

And, while the new study did not find an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term users of hydrochlorothiazide, they suggest that bendroflumethiazide “may be a safer alternative for patients at increased risk of skin cancer.” The long-term use of indapamide was associated with a moderately increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma but did not alter the risk of either squamous cell or basal cell carcinoma

“Our results suggest that bendroflumethiazide may be a safer alternative to hydrochlorothiazide and indapamide, especially for patients at increased risk of skin cancer, but future studies are needed to rule out a causal association between bendroflumethiazide and cutaneous malignant melanoma,” wrote authors who were led by Christoph R. Meier, PhD, a professor in pharmacy with University Hospital Basel (Switzerland) and a contributor to the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program.

This study adds to existing evidence that there is a dose-dependent increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma in users of high cumulative doses of hydrochlorothiazide, compared with non–hydrochlorothiazide users.

The study, an observational cohort study, was published earlier this year. It is based on data from the U.K.-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink. It included 271,154 new users of thiazides and thiazidelike diuretics, the majority at 87.6% having been prescribed bendroflumethiazide, 5.8% indapamide, and 3.6% hydrochlorothiazide. Outcomes were compared to those observed in 275,263 users of calcium channel blockers.

“The three primary outcomes of interest were a first-time diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios were estimated for both short-term and long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics and calcium channel blockers, while a propensity score (PS) analysis was done in order to control for 23 baseline covariates. The mean follow-up after PS weighting was 3.9 years for indapamide users and 5.5 years for hydrochlorothiazide users. Overall, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma were not markedly increased for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, the authors reported.

In contrast, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma for hydrochlorothiazide users were increased by 29% for short-term users at an IRR of 1.29 while they were increased by almost twofold for long-term hydrochlorothiazide users at an IRR of 1.95.

Long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide was again associated with a 64% increased risk of basal cell carcinoma, compared with users of a renin-angiotensin inhibitor at a weighted IRR of 1.64.

In contrast, weighted incident rate ratios for basal cell carcinoma for both short-term and long-term thiazide users were not significantly different and results were similar for patients who took hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, or bendroflumethiazide.

Weighted overall incident rate ratios for cutaneous malignant melanoma were not significantly different for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, compared with calcium channel blocker users.

However, there was a 43% increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term indapamide users at a weighted IRR of 1.43, compared with calcium channel blocker users, the authors reported.

“Given the biological plausibility and the severe clinical implications of cutaneous malignant melanoma, this finding should be considered carefully,” they cautioned.

Limitations to the study include the fact that the database analyzed does not have information on sun exposure, skin characteristics, or socioeconomic status which may affect the amount of sun exposure participants received.

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

Researchers writing in the British Journal of Dermatology confirm the long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide is associated with a dose-dependent, twofold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, compared with calcium channel blocker use.

The findings were originally reported in two Danish case-control studies in which physicians reported a fourfold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and a moderate increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma in patients who used hydrochlorothiazide long-term.

And, while the new study did not find an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term users of hydrochlorothiazide, they suggest that bendroflumethiazide “may be a safer alternative for patients at increased risk of skin cancer.” The long-term use of indapamide was associated with a moderately increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma but did not alter the risk of either squamous cell or basal cell carcinoma

“Our results suggest that bendroflumethiazide may be a safer alternative to hydrochlorothiazide and indapamide, especially for patients at increased risk of skin cancer, but future studies are needed to rule out a causal association between bendroflumethiazide and cutaneous malignant melanoma,” wrote authors who were led by Christoph R. Meier, PhD, a professor in pharmacy with University Hospital Basel (Switzerland) and a contributor to the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program.

This study adds to existing evidence that there is a dose-dependent increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma in users of high cumulative doses of hydrochlorothiazide, compared with non–hydrochlorothiazide users.

The study, an observational cohort study, was published earlier this year. It is based on data from the U.K.-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink. It included 271,154 new users of thiazides and thiazidelike diuretics, the majority at 87.6% having been prescribed bendroflumethiazide, 5.8% indapamide, and 3.6% hydrochlorothiazide. Outcomes were compared to those observed in 275,263 users of calcium channel blockers.

“The three primary outcomes of interest were a first-time diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios were estimated for both short-term and long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics and calcium channel blockers, while a propensity score (PS) analysis was done in order to control for 23 baseline covariates. The mean follow-up after PS weighting was 3.9 years for indapamide users and 5.5 years for hydrochlorothiazide users. Overall, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma were not markedly increased for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, the authors reported.

In contrast, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma for hydrochlorothiazide users were increased by 29% for short-term users at an IRR of 1.29 while they were increased by almost twofold for long-term hydrochlorothiazide users at an IRR of 1.95.

Long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide was again associated with a 64% increased risk of basal cell carcinoma, compared with users of a renin-angiotensin inhibitor at a weighted IRR of 1.64.

In contrast, weighted incident rate ratios for basal cell carcinoma for both short-term and long-term thiazide users were not significantly different and results were similar for patients who took hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, or bendroflumethiazide.

Weighted overall incident rate ratios for cutaneous malignant melanoma were not significantly different for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, compared with calcium channel blocker users.

However, there was a 43% increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term indapamide users at a weighted IRR of 1.43, compared with calcium channel blocker users, the authors reported.

“Given the biological plausibility and the severe clinical implications of cutaneous malignant melanoma, this finding should be considered carefully,” they cautioned.

Limitations to the study include the fact that the database analyzed does not have information on sun exposure, skin characteristics, or socioeconomic status which may affect the amount of sun exposure participants received.

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

Researchers writing in the British Journal of Dermatology confirm the long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide is associated with a dose-dependent, twofold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, compared with calcium channel blocker use.

The findings were originally reported in two Danish case-control studies in which physicians reported a fourfold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and a moderate increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma in patients who used hydrochlorothiazide long-term.

And, while the new study did not find an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term users of hydrochlorothiazide, they suggest that bendroflumethiazide “may be a safer alternative for patients at increased risk of skin cancer.” The long-term use of indapamide was associated with a moderately increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma but did not alter the risk of either squamous cell or basal cell carcinoma

“Our results suggest that bendroflumethiazide may be a safer alternative to hydrochlorothiazide and indapamide, especially for patients at increased risk of skin cancer, but future studies are needed to rule out a causal association between bendroflumethiazide and cutaneous malignant melanoma,” wrote authors who were led by Christoph R. Meier, PhD, a professor in pharmacy with University Hospital Basel (Switzerland) and a contributor to the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program.

This study adds to existing evidence that there is a dose-dependent increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma in users of high cumulative doses of hydrochlorothiazide, compared with non–hydrochlorothiazide users.

The study, an observational cohort study, was published earlier this year. It is based on data from the U.K.-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink. It included 271,154 new users of thiazides and thiazidelike diuretics, the majority at 87.6% having been prescribed bendroflumethiazide, 5.8% indapamide, and 3.6% hydrochlorothiazide. Outcomes were compared to those observed in 275,263 users of calcium channel blockers.

“The three primary outcomes of interest were a first-time diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios were estimated for both short-term and long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics and calcium channel blockers, while a propensity score (PS) analysis was done in order to control for 23 baseline covariates. The mean follow-up after PS weighting was 3.9 years for indapamide users and 5.5 years for hydrochlorothiazide users. Overall, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma were not markedly increased for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, the authors reported.

In contrast, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma for hydrochlorothiazide users were increased by 29% for short-term users at an IRR of 1.29 while they were increased by almost twofold for long-term hydrochlorothiazide users at an IRR of 1.95.

Long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide was again associated with a 64% increased risk of basal cell carcinoma, compared with users of a renin-angiotensin inhibitor at a weighted IRR of 1.64.

In contrast, weighted incident rate ratios for basal cell carcinoma for both short-term and long-term thiazide users were not significantly different and results were similar for patients who took hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, or bendroflumethiazide.

Weighted overall incident rate ratios for cutaneous malignant melanoma were not significantly different for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, compared with calcium channel blocker users.

However, there was a 43% increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term indapamide users at a weighted IRR of 1.43, compared with calcium channel blocker users, the authors reported.

“Given the biological plausibility and the severe clinical implications of cutaneous malignant melanoma, this finding should be considered carefully,” they cautioned.

Limitations to the study include the fact that the database analyzed does not have information on sun exposure, skin characteristics, or socioeconomic status which may affect the amount of sun exposure participants received.

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.