AVAHO

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

One of the most common questions my patients ask is, “What diet can help me beat this cancer?” It is a profoundly important question that is worthy of our efforts to answer. In this brief essay, I will take a deep dive into this question in depth and explore the broader clinical and scientific themes it brings into play.

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

A cancer diagnosis can be a deeply disempowering experience. Although I have not lived with cancer myself, I have seen this play out repeatedly over the past 5 years in my role as an oncologist treating patients with hematologic malignancies.

Our diet is an important part of our personal identity, culturally and spiritually. If lifestyle changes, such as a modified diet or more exercise, can contribute to cancer treatment, it may help us regain a sense of control over our lives, one that cancer so often cruelly strips away. I hypothesize that, among other factors, this is why diet is so important to our patients.

Another factor is exposure to a compelling diet-cancer narrative. Nearly every day, a media headline appears claiming that eating a particular food, or drinking coffee, can either increase or decrease your risk for a certain disease.

These claims, however, are often based on studies of large observational datasets where individuals fill out surveys about their dietary habits and are subsequently assessed for disease outcomes. In these studies, people aren’t asked to eat a particular diet; instead, their dietary habits are analyzed by researchers who have endless permutations to explore. This, in a nutshell, is the field of nutritional epidemiology.

In my opinion, nutritional epidemiology represents the collision of the well-intentioned effort to answer clinically meaningful questions with the ease — and near-infinite permutations — of dietary questions that can be asked from an increasingly larger number of different datasets.

Now, factor in the never-ending appetite (pun intended) of journalism and the public’s desire for dietary studies, and you create the perfect storm of incentives that drives a flood of low-quality nutritional science. These studies are highly malleable to analytical choices and can essentially produce results consistent with your prior beliefs, regardless of the philosophical inclination you have (pro keto-diet, pro-vegan, etc.). I love quoting this study to my trainees that, depending on what variables are included and how the analysis is conducted, the same dataset could be used to show that red meat either increases, decreases, or has no effect on all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, much of the evidence base for diet in cancer comes from similarly confounded, low-quality studies.

Diet and Cancer

So, what do randomized trials show for diet and cancer?

The highest-quality evidence is generated from randomized controlled trials. One of their key advantages is the ability to control both measured and unmeasured confounders.

Unfortunately, the evidence supporting diet as an anticancer modality in randomized trials in patients with cancer is bleak. We did a systematic review of all randomized trials of dietary intervention ever done in patients with cancer. Most of the trials measured outcomes such as feasibility (often small pilot studies that measure variables such as weight changes or lab values). The trials that measure clinical endpoints, such as survival, were largely negative and demonstrated no meaningful effect of diet on outcomes. Take trials exploring whether a Mediterranean diet helps prevent breast cancer recurrence, or whether a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves prostate cancer outcomes. Although these diets may offer benefits, these studies found that specific diets did not change the natural history of cancer.

Myeloma and Diet

In my specialty, multiple myeloma, I am thankful that some trials are beginning to shed light on whether diet influences cancer outcomes.

One study, which was recently published in Cancer Discovery, explored whether a high-fiber, plant-based diet could potentially slow or delay progression from myeloma precursor conditions toward full-blown multiple myeloma. The trial enrolled 23 participants, with the primary endpoints of dietary adherence and changes to BMI. Measures of progression to multiple myeloma were exploratory at best. Yet, the media coverage, as well as the majority of the discussion and results sections of this study manuscript, claimed that the diet changes can prevent progression to myeloma.

However, the study design and conclusions were flawed. The paper focused on two patients who had some improvement in disease trajectory, while descriptions of patients who had an increase in their bone marrow plasma cell percentage were relegated to the supplemental section.

As a primary investigator of a trial in smoldering myeloma where we use advanced imaging as an alternative to pharmacologic treatment, I frequently see myeloma markers fluctuate and often decrease. I attribute these changes to random variation, or possibly regression to the mean, rather than the effect of any intervention.

Future randomized studies by this group used primary endpoints of stool butyrate level and implement dietary interventions for a limited period— 2 weeks in one study and 12 weeks in another — to again assess the impact of a high-fiber, plant-based diet on progression to myeloma. Although there are no data yet, the limited timeframes in these studies severely limits generalizability for outcomes that would truly matter, such as cancer control and longevity. There is also no evidence that changes in stool butyrate levels influence patient outcomes.

High-quality science — whether it is evaluating diet or other interventions—requires high-quality data, effort, funding, and time. It is not impossible.

We can draw inspiration from the CHALLENGE trial. This large, randomized trial, which took over a decade to complete, assessed the benefit of a structured exercise program in the adjuvant setting for colon cancer. The endpoint of this study was disease-free survival, and the intervention was deployed over a much longer period: 3 years, as opposed to a 2-week intervention. This trial took years from inception to completion, but it yielded a conclusive result and will probably lead to more dedicated efforts to facilitate exercise programs for patients with cancer.

Our patients deserve the same effort as the CHALLENGE trial to answer their important dietary questions. Until such trials are completed, we must acknowledge, with humility, that despite the common sense and feel-good factor that many diets offer us, their impact on cancer remains uncertain.

Conversely, we must recognize that even if diet does not cure or alter the course of a certain cancer, it can still impact quality of life, treatment tolerance, and other supportive care outcomes, making it an important factor in patient care.

This is what I tell my patients that it is unlikely any one diet will change the trajectory of your cancer. Focus on eating healthy, and remember that most things in moderation are fine. Your diet remains an important risk factor and determinant for health outcomes beyond cancer. Eat what makes you happy. You are going through a tough time, and this is not the moment to impose stringent restrictions on yourself.

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

One of the most common questions my patients ask is, “What diet can help me beat this cancer?” It is a profoundly important question that is worthy of our efforts to answer. In this brief essay, I will take a deep dive into this question in depth and explore the broader clinical and scientific themes it brings into play.

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

A cancer diagnosis can be a deeply disempowering experience. Although I have not lived with cancer myself, I have seen this play out repeatedly over the past 5 years in my role as an oncologist treating patients with hematologic malignancies.

Our diet is an important part of our personal identity, culturally and spiritually. If lifestyle changes, such as a modified diet or more exercise, can contribute to cancer treatment, it may help us regain a sense of control over our lives, one that cancer so often cruelly strips away. I hypothesize that, among other factors, this is why diet is so important to our patients.

Another factor is exposure to a compelling diet-cancer narrative. Nearly every day, a media headline appears claiming that eating a particular food, or drinking coffee, can either increase or decrease your risk for a certain disease.

These claims, however, are often based on studies of large observational datasets where individuals fill out surveys about their dietary habits and are subsequently assessed for disease outcomes. In these studies, people aren’t asked to eat a particular diet; instead, their dietary habits are analyzed by researchers who have endless permutations to explore. This, in a nutshell, is the field of nutritional epidemiology.

In my opinion, nutritional epidemiology represents the collision of the well-intentioned effort to answer clinically meaningful questions with the ease — and near-infinite permutations — of dietary questions that can be asked from an increasingly larger number of different datasets.

Now, factor in the never-ending appetite (pun intended) of journalism and the public’s desire for dietary studies, and you create the perfect storm of incentives that drives a flood of low-quality nutritional science. These studies are highly malleable to analytical choices and can essentially produce results consistent with your prior beliefs, regardless of the philosophical inclination you have (pro keto-diet, pro-vegan, etc.). I love quoting this study to my trainees that, depending on what variables are included and how the analysis is conducted, the same dataset could be used to show that red meat either increases, decreases, or has no effect on all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, much of the evidence base for diet in cancer comes from similarly confounded, low-quality studies.

Diet and Cancer

So, what do randomized trials show for diet and cancer?

The highest-quality evidence is generated from randomized controlled trials. One of their key advantages is the ability to control both measured and unmeasured confounders.

Unfortunately, the evidence supporting diet as an anticancer modality in randomized trials in patients with cancer is bleak. We did a systematic review of all randomized trials of dietary intervention ever done in patients with cancer. Most of the trials measured outcomes such as feasibility (often small pilot studies that measure variables such as weight changes or lab values). The trials that measure clinical endpoints, such as survival, were largely negative and demonstrated no meaningful effect of diet on outcomes. Take trials exploring whether a Mediterranean diet helps prevent breast cancer recurrence, or whether a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves prostate cancer outcomes. Although these diets may offer benefits, these studies found that specific diets did not change the natural history of cancer.

Myeloma and Diet

In my specialty, multiple myeloma, I am thankful that some trials are beginning to shed light on whether diet influences cancer outcomes.

One study, which was recently published in Cancer Discovery, explored whether a high-fiber, plant-based diet could potentially slow or delay progression from myeloma precursor conditions toward full-blown multiple myeloma. The trial enrolled 23 participants, with the primary endpoints of dietary adherence and changes to BMI. Measures of progression to multiple myeloma were exploratory at best. Yet, the media coverage, as well as the majority of the discussion and results sections of this study manuscript, claimed that the diet changes can prevent progression to myeloma.

However, the study design and conclusions were flawed. The paper focused on two patients who had some improvement in disease trajectory, while descriptions of patients who had an increase in their bone marrow plasma cell percentage were relegated to the supplemental section.

As a primary investigator of a trial in smoldering myeloma where we use advanced imaging as an alternative to pharmacologic treatment, I frequently see myeloma markers fluctuate and often decrease. I attribute these changes to random variation, or possibly regression to the mean, rather than the effect of any intervention.

Future randomized studies by this group used primary endpoints of stool butyrate level and implement dietary interventions for a limited period— 2 weeks in one study and 12 weeks in another — to again assess the impact of a high-fiber, plant-based diet on progression to myeloma. Although there are no data yet, the limited timeframes in these studies severely limits generalizability for outcomes that would truly matter, such as cancer control and longevity. There is also no evidence that changes in stool butyrate levels influence patient outcomes.

High-quality science — whether it is evaluating diet or other interventions—requires high-quality data, effort, funding, and time. It is not impossible.

We can draw inspiration from the CHALLENGE trial. This large, randomized trial, which took over a decade to complete, assessed the benefit of a structured exercise program in the adjuvant setting for colon cancer. The endpoint of this study was disease-free survival, and the intervention was deployed over a much longer period: 3 years, as opposed to a 2-week intervention. This trial took years from inception to completion, but it yielded a conclusive result and will probably lead to more dedicated efforts to facilitate exercise programs for patients with cancer.

Our patients deserve the same effort as the CHALLENGE trial to answer their important dietary questions. Until such trials are completed, we must acknowledge, with humility, that despite the common sense and feel-good factor that many diets offer us, their impact on cancer remains uncertain.

Conversely, we must recognize that even if diet does not cure or alter the course of a certain cancer, it can still impact quality of life, treatment tolerance, and other supportive care outcomes, making it an important factor in patient care.

This is what I tell my patients that it is unlikely any one diet will change the trajectory of your cancer. Focus on eating healthy, and remember that most things in moderation are fine. Your diet remains an important risk factor and determinant for health outcomes beyond cancer. Eat what makes you happy. You are going through a tough time, and this is not the moment to impose stringent restrictions on yourself.

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

One of the most common questions my patients ask is, “What diet can help me beat this cancer?” It is a profoundly important question that is worthy of our efforts to answer. In this brief essay, I will take a deep dive into this question in depth and explore the broader clinical and scientific themes it brings into play.

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

A cancer diagnosis can be a deeply disempowering experience. Although I have not lived with cancer myself, I have seen this play out repeatedly over the past 5 years in my role as an oncologist treating patients with hematologic malignancies.

Our diet is an important part of our personal identity, culturally and spiritually. If lifestyle changes, such as a modified diet or more exercise, can contribute to cancer treatment, it may help us regain a sense of control over our lives, one that cancer so often cruelly strips away. I hypothesize that, among other factors, this is why diet is so important to our patients.

Another factor is exposure to a compelling diet-cancer narrative. Nearly every day, a media headline appears claiming that eating a particular food, or drinking coffee, can either increase or decrease your risk for a certain disease.

These claims, however, are often based on studies of large observational datasets where individuals fill out surveys about their dietary habits and are subsequently assessed for disease outcomes. In these studies, people aren’t asked to eat a particular diet; instead, their dietary habits are analyzed by researchers who have endless permutations to explore. This, in a nutshell, is the field of nutritional epidemiology.

In my opinion, nutritional epidemiology represents the collision of the well-intentioned effort to answer clinically meaningful questions with the ease — and near-infinite permutations — of dietary questions that can be asked from an increasingly larger number of different datasets.

Now, factor in the never-ending appetite (pun intended) of journalism and the public’s desire for dietary studies, and you create the perfect storm of incentives that drives a flood of low-quality nutritional science. These studies are highly malleable to analytical choices and can essentially produce results consistent with your prior beliefs, regardless of the philosophical inclination you have (pro keto-diet, pro-vegan, etc.). I love quoting this study to my trainees that, depending on what variables are included and how the analysis is conducted, the same dataset could be used to show that red meat either increases, decreases, or has no effect on all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, much of the evidence base for diet in cancer comes from similarly confounded, low-quality studies.

Diet and Cancer

So, what do randomized trials show for diet and cancer?

The highest-quality evidence is generated from randomized controlled trials. One of their key advantages is the ability to control both measured and unmeasured confounders.

Unfortunately, the evidence supporting diet as an anticancer modality in randomized trials in patients with cancer is bleak. We did a systematic review of all randomized trials of dietary intervention ever done in patients with cancer. Most of the trials measured outcomes such as feasibility (often small pilot studies that measure variables such as weight changes or lab values). The trials that measure clinical endpoints, such as survival, were largely negative and demonstrated no meaningful effect of diet on outcomes. Take trials exploring whether a Mediterranean diet helps prevent breast cancer recurrence, or whether a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves prostate cancer outcomes. Although these diets may offer benefits, these studies found that specific diets did not change the natural history of cancer.

Myeloma and Diet

In my specialty, multiple myeloma, I am thankful that some trials are beginning to shed light on whether diet influences cancer outcomes.

One study, which was recently published in Cancer Discovery, explored whether a high-fiber, plant-based diet could potentially slow or delay progression from myeloma precursor conditions toward full-blown multiple myeloma. The trial enrolled 23 participants, with the primary endpoints of dietary adherence and changes to BMI. Measures of progression to multiple myeloma were exploratory at best. Yet, the media coverage, as well as the majority of the discussion and results sections of this study manuscript, claimed that the diet changes can prevent progression to myeloma.

However, the study design and conclusions were flawed. The paper focused on two patients who had some improvement in disease trajectory, while descriptions of patients who had an increase in their bone marrow plasma cell percentage were relegated to the supplemental section.

As a primary investigator of a trial in smoldering myeloma where we use advanced imaging as an alternative to pharmacologic treatment, I frequently see myeloma markers fluctuate and often decrease. I attribute these changes to random variation, or possibly regression to the mean, rather than the effect of any intervention.

Future randomized studies by this group used primary endpoints of stool butyrate level and implement dietary interventions for a limited period— 2 weeks in one study and 12 weeks in another — to again assess the impact of a high-fiber, plant-based diet on progression to myeloma. Although there are no data yet, the limited timeframes in these studies severely limits generalizability for outcomes that would truly matter, such as cancer control and longevity. There is also no evidence that changes in stool butyrate levels influence patient outcomes.

High-quality science — whether it is evaluating diet or other interventions—requires high-quality data, effort, funding, and time. It is not impossible.

We can draw inspiration from the CHALLENGE trial. This large, randomized trial, which took over a decade to complete, assessed the benefit of a structured exercise program in the adjuvant setting for colon cancer. The endpoint of this study was disease-free survival, and the intervention was deployed over a much longer period: 3 years, as opposed to a 2-week intervention. This trial took years from inception to completion, but it yielded a conclusive result and will probably lead to more dedicated efforts to facilitate exercise programs for patients with cancer.

Our patients deserve the same effort as the CHALLENGE trial to answer their important dietary questions. Until such trials are completed, we must acknowledge, with humility, that despite the common sense and feel-good factor that many diets offer us, their impact on cancer remains uncertain.

Conversely, we must recognize that even if diet does not cure or alter the course of a certain cancer, it can still impact quality of life, treatment tolerance, and other supportive care outcomes, making it an important factor in patient care.

This is what I tell my patients that it is unlikely any one diet will change the trajectory of your cancer. Focus on eating healthy, and remember that most things in moderation are fine. Your diet remains an important risk factor and determinant for health outcomes beyond cancer. Eat what makes you happy. You are going through a tough time, and this is not the moment to impose stringent restrictions on yourself.

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

The FDA has granted traditional approval to encorafenib (Braftovi, Pfizer) in combination with cetuximab (Erbitux, Eli Lilly) and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for treatment of adults with metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation, as detected by an FDA-authorized test.

Encorafenib received accelerated approval for use with cetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 in this patient population in 2024, based on results from the BREAKWATER trial showing improved objective response rates. The conversion to full approval is supported by progression-free and overall survival outcomes.

As reported previously by Medscape Medical News, the combination of encorafenib/cetuximab/mFOLFOX6 doubled median overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. At a median follow-up of 22 months, overall survival was 30 months with the encorafenib regimen vs 15 months with standard chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P < .0001).

At median follow up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 12.8 in the encorafenib group vs 7.1 months in the standard chemotherapy group (HR, 0.53; P < .0001).

The survival results are “unprecedented” and “practice changing” for these patients, who historically have a poor prognosis, lead investigator Elena Élez, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, said in presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

The results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Speaking at the ASCO meeting, study discussant Andrea Sartore-Bianchi, MD, of the University of Milan, Italy, called the results “striking” and said the encorafenib combination should be considered the first-line standard of care.

As for safety, the rate of treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events in the trial was 76% with encorafenib vs 59% with standard chemotherapy. Patients receiving encorafenib also had higher rates of anemia, arthralgia, rash, and pyrexia, but there was no substantial increase in treatment discontinuation.

The recommended encorafenib dose is 300 mg (four 75 mg capsules) once daily, in combination with cetuximab and mFOLFOX6 or in combination with cetuximab and FOLFIRI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the FDA said in its approval announcement.

Prescribing information includes warnings and precautions for new primary malignancies (cutaneous and noncutaneous), tumor promotion in BRAF-wild-type tumors, cardiomyopathy, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhage, uveitis, QT prolongation, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

The FDA has granted traditional approval to encorafenib (Braftovi, Pfizer) in combination with cetuximab (Erbitux, Eli Lilly) and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for treatment of adults with metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation, as detected by an FDA-authorized test.

Encorafenib received accelerated approval for use with cetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 in this patient population in 2024, based on results from the BREAKWATER trial showing improved objective response rates. The conversion to full approval is supported by progression-free and overall survival outcomes.

As reported previously by Medscape Medical News, the combination of encorafenib/cetuximab/mFOLFOX6 doubled median overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. At a median follow-up of 22 months, overall survival was 30 months with the encorafenib regimen vs 15 months with standard chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P < .0001).

At median follow up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 12.8 in the encorafenib group vs 7.1 months in the standard chemotherapy group (HR, 0.53; P < .0001).

The survival results are “unprecedented” and “practice changing” for these patients, who historically have a poor prognosis, lead investigator Elena Élez, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, said in presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

The results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Speaking at the ASCO meeting, study discussant Andrea Sartore-Bianchi, MD, of the University of Milan, Italy, called the results “striking” and said the encorafenib combination should be considered the first-line standard of care.

As for safety, the rate of treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events in the trial was 76% with encorafenib vs 59% with standard chemotherapy. Patients receiving encorafenib also had higher rates of anemia, arthralgia, rash, and pyrexia, but there was no substantial increase in treatment discontinuation.

The recommended encorafenib dose is 300 mg (four 75 mg capsules) once daily, in combination with cetuximab and mFOLFOX6 or in combination with cetuximab and FOLFIRI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the FDA said in its approval announcement.

Prescribing information includes warnings and precautions for new primary malignancies (cutaneous and noncutaneous), tumor promotion in BRAF-wild-type tumors, cardiomyopathy, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhage, uveitis, QT prolongation, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

The FDA has granted traditional approval to encorafenib (Braftovi, Pfizer) in combination with cetuximab (Erbitux, Eli Lilly) and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for treatment of adults with metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation, as detected by an FDA-authorized test.

Encorafenib received accelerated approval for use with cetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 in this patient population in 2024, based on results from the BREAKWATER trial showing improved objective response rates. The conversion to full approval is supported by progression-free and overall survival outcomes.

As reported previously by Medscape Medical News, the combination of encorafenib/cetuximab/mFOLFOX6 doubled median overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. At a median follow-up of 22 months, overall survival was 30 months with the encorafenib regimen vs 15 months with standard chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P < .0001).

At median follow up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 12.8 in the encorafenib group vs 7.1 months in the standard chemotherapy group (HR, 0.53; P < .0001).

The survival results are “unprecedented” and “practice changing” for these patients, who historically have a poor prognosis, lead investigator Elena Élez, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, said in presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

The results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Speaking at the ASCO meeting, study discussant Andrea Sartore-Bianchi, MD, of the University of Milan, Italy, called the results “striking” and said the encorafenib combination should be considered the first-line standard of care.

As for safety, the rate of treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events in the trial was 76% with encorafenib vs 59% with standard chemotherapy. Patients receiving encorafenib also had higher rates of anemia, arthralgia, rash, and pyrexia, but there was no substantial increase in treatment discontinuation.

The recommended encorafenib dose is 300 mg (four 75 mg capsules) once daily, in combination with cetuximab and mFOLFOX6 or in combination with cetuximab and FOLFIRI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the FDA said in its approval announcement.

Prescribing information includes warnings and precautions for new primary malignancies (cutaneous and noncutaneous), tumor promotion in BRAF-wild-type tumors, cardiomyopathy, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhage, uveitis, QT prolongation, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

TOPLINE: Among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients experiencing homelessness, gaining housing is linked to higher 24-month colorectal (CRC) and breast cancer screening completion. In cohorts of 117,619 veterans eligible for colorectal screening and 6517 veterans eligible for breast cancer screening veterans, screening occurs in 36.1% and 47.9% after housing gain vs 18.8% and 23.7% if homelessness persists.

METHODOLOGY

• A retrospective cohort study examined all veterans experiencing homelessness who received care at the VHA from 2011 to 2021 and were eligible for but not up to date on CRC and breast cancer screening.

• 117,619 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on CRC screening (aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, inflammatory bowel disease, or colectomy) and 6517 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on breast cancer screening (women aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, lumpectomy, or mastectomy) were included at their index clinic visit.

• Exposure was defined as gaining housing within 24 months following index clinic visit, identified through the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Operations, Management, and Evaluation System assessments, or US Department of Housing and Urban Development—VA Supportive Housing program move-in dates.

• Primary outcome were undergoing screening for CRC (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, barium enema, or stool-based study) or breast cancer (mammogram) that was at a VHA facility or paid by VA within 24 months following index clinic visit.

TAKEAWAY

• Among veterans who gained housing, 36.1% underwent CRC screening and 47.9% underwent breast cancer screening during the 24-month observation period, compared with 18.8% and 23.7% of veterans, respectively, among those who remained homeless.

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.3 times the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of undergoing CRC screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.2-2.3; P < .001).

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.4 times the adjusted hazard of undergoing breast cancer screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.2-2.7; P < .001).

• Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time from index visit to cancer screening was 8 months (4-15) for CRC screening and 8 months (3-14) for breast cancer screening; median (IQR) time from gaining housing to screening was 4 months (1-9) and 3 months (1-8), respectively.

IN PRACTICE: Veterans experiencing homelessness who gain housing have higher rates of cancer screening. “This finding supports promotion of housing to improve health outcomes for homeless individuals," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in Annals of Family Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: Residual unmeasured confounding was likely due to the observational design of this study, because veterans able to navigate services to obtain housing may also be more likely to complete preventive care. Housing transitions may be misclassified because the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder was not designed to track changes and may not be administered to veterans already identified as experiencing homelessness. The study did not capture data for screening completed outside VHA or that was not paid for by it. The study cohort only includes veterans with VHA contact, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES: Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative provided grant support for the work; Project Grant K24AG046372 was also awarded to Kushel for the study. Decker is a National Clinician Scholar with salary support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and reported receiving personal fees from Moon Surgical. Kanzaria and Kushel are faculty members of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative; Kanzaria also reported advisory work for Amae Health. Kushel is listed as serving on boards including Housing California, National Homelessness Law Center, and Steinberg Institute; other authors reported no conflicts.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients experiencing homelessness, gaining housing is linked to higher 24-month colorectal (CRC) and breast cancer screening completion. In cohorts of 117,619 veterans eligible for colorectal screening and 6517 veterans eligible for breast cancer screening veterans, screening occurs in 36.1% and 47.9% after housing gain vs 18.8% and 23.7% if homelessness persists.

METHODOLOGY

• A retrospective cohort study examined all veterans experiencing homelessness who received care at the VHA from 2011 to 2021 and were eligible for but not up to date on CRC and breast cancer screening.

• 117,619 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on CRC screening (aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, inflammatory bowel disease, or colectomy) and 6517 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on breast cancer screening (women aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, lumpectomy, or mastectomy) were included at their index clinic visit.

• Exposure was defined as gaining housing within 24 months following index clinic visit, identified through the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Operations, Management, and Evaluation System assessments, or US Department of Housing and Urban Development—VA Supportive Housing program move-in dates.

• Primary outcome were undergoing screening for CRC (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, barium enema, or stool-based study) or breast cancer (mammogram) that was at a VHA facility or paid by VA within 24 months following index clinic visit.

TAKEAWAY

• Among veterans who gained housing, 36.1% underwent CRC screening and 47.9% underwent breast cancer screening during the 24-month observation period, compared with 18.8% and 23.7% of veterans, respectively, among those who remained homeless.

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.3 times the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of undergoing CRC screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.2-2.3; P < .001).

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.4 times the adjusted hazard of undergoing breast cancer screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.2-2.7; P < .001).

• Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time from index visit to cancer screening was 8 months (4-15) for CRC screening and 8 months (3-14) for breast cancer screening; median (IQR) time from gaining housing to screening was 4 months (1-9) and 3 months (1-8), respectively.

IN PRACTICE: Veterans experiencing homelessness who gain housing have higher rates of cancer screening. “This finding supports promotion of housing to improve health outcomes for homeless individuals," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in Annals of Family Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: Residual unmeasured confounding was likely due to the observational design of this study, because veterans able to navigate services to obtain housing may also be more likely to complete preventive care. Housing transitions may be misclassified because the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder was not designed to track changes and may not be administered to veterans already identified as experiencing homelessness. The study did not capture data for screening completed outside VHA or that was not paid for by it. The study cohort only includes veterans with VHA contact, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES: Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative provided grant support for the work; Project Grant K24AG046372 was also awarded to Kushel for the study. Decker is a National Clinician Scholar with salary support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and reported receiving personal fees from Moon Surgical. Kanzaria and Kushel are faculty members of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative; Kanzaria also reported advisory work for Amae Health. Kushel is listed as serving on boards including Housing California, National Homelessness Law Center, and Steinberg Institute; other authors reported no conflicts.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients experiencing homelessness, gaining housing is linked to higher 24-month colorectal (CRC) and breast cancer screening completion. In cohorts of 117,619 veterans eligible for colorectal screening and 6517 veterans eligible for breast cancer screening veterans, screening occurs in 36.1% and 47.9% after housing gain vs 18.8% and 23.7% if homelessness persists.

METHODOLOGY

• A retrospective cohort study examined all veterans experiencing homelessness who received care at the VHA from 2011 to 2021 and were eligible for but not up to date on CRC and breast cancer screening.

• 117,619 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on CRC screening (aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, inflammatory bowel disease, or colectomy) and 6517 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on breast cancer screening (women aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, lumpectomy, or mastectomy) were included at their index clinic visit.

• Exposure was defined as gaining housing within 24 months following index clinic visit, identified through the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Operations, Management, and Evaluation System assessments, or US Department of Housing and Urban Development—VA Supportive Housing program move-in dates.

• Primary outcome were undergoing screening for CRC (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, barium enema, or stool-based study) or breast cancer (mammogram) that was at a VHA facility or paid by VA within 24 months following index clinic visit.

TAKEAWAY

• Among veterans who gained housing, 36.1% underwent CRC screening and 47.9% underwent breast cancer screening during the 24-month observation period, compared with 18.8% and 23.7% of veterans, respectively, among those who remained homeless.

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.3 times the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of undergoing CRC screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.2-2.3; P < .001).

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.4 times the adjusted hazard of undergoing breast cancer screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.2-2.7; P < .001).

• Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time from index visit to cancer screening was 8 months (4-15) for CRC screening and 8 months (3-14) for breast cancer screening; median (IQR) time from gaining housing to screening was 4 months (1-9) and 3 months (1-8), respectively.

IN PRACTICE: Veterans experiencing homelessness who gain housing have higher rates of cancer screening. “This finding supports promotion of housing to improve health outcomes for homeless individuals," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in Annals of Family Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: Residual unmeasured confounding was likely due to the observational design of this study, because veterans able to navigate services to obtain housing may also be more likely to complete preventive care. Housing transitions may be misclassified because the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder was not designed to track changes and may not be administered to veterans already identified as experiencing homelessness. The study did not capture data for screening completed outside VHA or that was not paid for by it. The study cohort only includes veterans with VHA contact, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES: Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative provided grant support for the work; Project Grant K24AG046372 was also awarded to Kushel for the study. Decker is a National Clinician Scholar with salary support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and reported receiving personal fees from Moon Surgical. Kanzaria and Kushel are faculty members of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative; Kanzaria also reported advisory work for Amae Health. Kushel is listed as serving on boards including Housing California, National Homelessness Law Center, and Steinberg Institute; other authors reported no conflicts.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

In patients with 5-20 brain metastases, stereotactic radiation improved symptoms and reduced interference with daily functioning compared to hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation. The weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score changed from 2.69 to 2.37 with stereotactic radiation compared with 2.29 to 3.03 with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Randomized trials have shown stereotactic radiation preserves neurocognitive function and patient-reported outcomes compared with whole brain radiation in patients with four or less brain metastases. For patients with more than four brain metastases, published randomized comparisons of stereotactic radiation vs whole brain radiation were lacking prior to this study.
• Researchers conducted a phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial at four US-based centers, enrolling 196 patients between April 2017 and May 2024, with final follow-up in March 2025.
• Participants included patients with 5-20 brain metastases and no prior brain-directed radiation, with a median of 14 brain metastases per patient and 25% having undergone prior neurosurgical resection.
• The primary outcome was the mean weighted patient-reported symptom severity and interference score change over 6 months. The researchers used the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor instrument, with scores ranging from 0-10 and change range of -10 to 10, to measure outcomes.
• Stereotactic radiation was delivered in either 1 day (20 Gy) or five daily fractions (30 Gy, or 25 Gy for surgically removed tumors), while hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation was administered as 30 Gy in 10 daily fractions with memantine.

TAKEAWAY:

• Primary outcome analysis showed that stereotactic radiation was linked to a change in the weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score of 2.69 to 2.37 (mean change, -0.32) compared with 2.29 to 3.03 (mean change, 0.74) with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation (mean difference, -1.06; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.58; P < .001).
• Functional independence via the Barthel Index was better in the stereotactic radiation group at 4 months (mean difference, 6.79; 95% CI, 1.19-12.38; P = .02) and 12 months (mean difference, 7.92; 95% CI, 1.34-14.49; P = .02).
• New brain metastases were more frequent with stereotactic radiation (1-year cumulative incidence, 45.4% vs 24.2%; P = .003), while local recurrence was lower (3.2% vs 39.5%; P < .001).
• Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 12% of stereotactic radiation patients vs 13% in the hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation group, with fatigue being most common (28% vs 44%).

IN PRACTICE:

“While [the trial] clearly demonstrates that patients with 5-20 brain metastases have improved symptom burden and lowered interference with daily functioning, there are questions that remain for stereotactic radiosurgery in this population. Patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases have a higher need for future salvage procedures, and this rate of salvage procedures is higher for patients with an increased number of brain metastases at diagnosis… Moreover, it has been shown that the upfront decision between stereotactic radiosurgery and whole brain radiotherapy is the single decision that contributes most to the cost of care of a patient with brain metastases,” said Michael Chan, MD, in an accompanying editorial published in JAMA.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ayal A. Aizer, MD, MHS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. It was published online on February 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study was not blinded, and the primary outcome was subjective. High mortality limited long-term data collection, reducing precision and biasing outcomes toward survivors. Additionally, randomization was not stratified by treating center, allowing possible unmeasured imbalances. The minimal clinically important difference had not been defined for many study outcome measures.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was supported by Varian, a Siemens Healthineers Company. Aizer disclosed receiving grants from NH TherAguix Research outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

In patients with 5-20 brain metastases, stereotactic radiation improved symptoms and reduced interference with daily functioning compared to hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation. The weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score changed from 2.69 to 2.37 with stereotactic radiation compared with 2.29 to 3.03 with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Randomized trials have shown stereotactic radiation preserves neurocognitive function and patient-reported outcomes compared with whole brain radiation in patients with four or less brain metastases. For patients with more than four brain metastases, published randomized comparisons of stereotactic radiation vs whole brain radiation were lacking prior to this study.
• Researchers conducted a phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial at four US-based centers, enrolling 196 patients between April 2017 and May 2024, with final follow-up in March 2025.
• Participants included patients with 5-20 brain metastases and no prior brain-directed radiation, with a median of 14 brain metastases per patient and 25% having undergone prior neurosurgical resection.
• The primary outcome was the mean weighted patient-reported symptom severity and interference score change over 6 months. The researchers used the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor instrument, with scores ranging from 0-10 and change range of -10 to 10, to measure outcomes.
• Stereotactic radiation was delivered in either 1 day (20 Gy) or five daily fractions (30 Gy, or 25 Gy for surgically removed tumors), while hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation was administered as 30 Gy in 10 daily fractions with memantine.

TAKEAWAY:

• Primary outcome analysis showed that stereotactic radiation was linked to a change in the weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score of 2.69 to 2.37 (mean change, -0.32) compared with 2.29 to 3.03 (mean change, 0.74) with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation (mean difference, -1.06; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.58; P < .001).
• Functional independence via the Barthel Index was better in the stereotactic radiation group at 4 months (mean difference, 6.79; 95% CI, 1.19-12.38; P = .02) and 12 months (mean difference, 7.92; 95% CI, 1.34-14.49; P = .02).
• New brain metastases were more frequent with stereotactic radiation (1-year cumulative incidence, 45.4% vs 24.2%; P = .003), while local recurrence was lower (3.2% vs 39.5%; P < .001).
• Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 12% of stereotactic radiation patients vs 13% in the hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation group, with fatigue being most common (28% vs 44%).

IN PRACTICE:

“While [the trial] clearly demonstrates that patients with 5-20 brain metastases have improved symptom burden and lowered interference with daily functioning, there are questions that remain for stereotactic radiosurgery in this population. Patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases have a higher need for future salvage procedures, and this rate of salvage procedures is higher for patients with an increased number of brain metastases at diagnosis… Moreover, it has been shown that the upfront decision between stereotactic radiosurgery and whole brain radiotherapy is the single decision that contributes most to the cost of care of a patient with brain metastases,” said Michael Chan, MD, in an accompanying editorial published in JAMA.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ayal A. Aizer, MD, MHS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. It was published online on February 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study was not blinded, and the primary outcome was subjective. High mortality limited long-term data collection, reducing precision and biasing outcomes toward survivors. Additionally, randomization was not stratified by treating center, allowing possible unmeasured imbalances. The minimal clinically important difference had not been defined for many study outcome measures.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was supported by Varian, a Siemens Healthineers Company. Aizer disclosed receiving grants from NH TherAguix Research outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

In patients with 5-20 brain metastases, stereotactic radiation improved symptoms and reduced interference with daily functioning compared to hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation. The weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score changed from 2.69 to 2.37 with stereotactic radiation compared with 2.29 to 3.03 with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Randomized trials have shown stereotactic radiation preserves neurocognitive function and patient-reported outcomes compared with whole brain radiation in patients with four or less brain metastases. For patients with more than four brain metastases, published randomized comparisons of stereotactic radiation vs whole brain radiation were lacking prior to this study.
• Researchers conducted a phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial at four US-based centers, enrolling 196 patients between April 2017 and May 2024, with final follow-up in March 2025.
• Participants included patients with 5-20 brain metastases and no prior brain-directed radiation, with a median of 14 brain metastases per patient and 25% having undergone prior neurosurgical resection.
• The primary outcome was the mean weighted patient-reported symptom severity and interference score change over 6 months. The researchers used the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor instrument, with scores ranging from 0-10 and change range of -10 to 10, to measure outcomes.
• Stereotactic radiation was delivered in either 1 day (20 Gy) or five daily fractions (30 Gy, or 25 Gy for surgically removed tumors), while hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation was administered as 30 Gy in 10 daily fractions with memantine.

TAKEAWAY:

• Primary outcome analysis showed that stereotactic radiation was linked to a change in the weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score of 2.69 to 2.37 (mean change, -0.32) compared with 2.29 to 3.03 (mean change, 0.74) with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation (mean difference, -1.06; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.58; P < .001).
• Functional independence via the Barthel Index was better in the stereotactic radiation group at 4 months (mean difference, 6.79; 95% CI, 1.19-12.38; P = .02) and 12 months (mean difference, 7.92; 95% CI, 1.34-14.49; P = .02).
• New brain metastases were more frequent with stereotactic radiation (1-year cumulative incidence, 45.4% vs 24.2%; P = .003), while local recurrence was lower (3.2% vs 39.5%; P < .001).
• Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 12% of stereotactic radiation patients vs 13% in the hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation group, with fatigue being most common (28% vs 44%).

IN PRACTICE:

“While [the trial] clearly demonstrates that patients with 5-20 brain metastases have improved symptom burden and lowered interference with daily functioning, there are questions that remain for stereotactic radiosurgery in this population. Patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases have a higher need for future salvage procedures, and this rate of salvage procedures is higher for patients with an increased number of brain metastases at diagnosis… Moreover, it has been shown that the upfront decision between stereotactic radiosurgery and whole brain radiotherapy is the single decision that contributes most to the cost of care of a patient with brain metastases,” said Michael Chan, MD, in an accompanying editorial published in JAMA.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ayal A. Aizer, MD, MHS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. It was published online on February 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study was not blinded, and the primary outcome was subjective. High mortality limited long-term data collection, reducing precision and biasing outcomes toward survivors. Additionally, randomization was not stratified by treating center, allowing possible unmeasured imbalances. The minimal clinically important difference had not been defined for many study outcome measures.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was supported by Varian, a Siemens Healthineers Company. Aizer disclosed receiving grants from NH TherAguix Research outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

Transcript generated from video captions.

Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I'd like to discuss over the next few minutes an absolutely provocative — and I don't use that term loosely — report that I would humbly suggest may, or perhaps even should, change standard of practice in the care of patients with breast cancer. The paper was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, entitled, “Aprepitant Use During Chemotherapy and Association With Survival in Women With Early Breast Cancer.”

This is a very complex, important, and provocative topic, and I'm only going to have a short time to summarize these results, but again, I would suggest this is a topic worthy of very serious consideration in terms of the implications.

Aprepitant, as many of you know, is a standard antiemetic that has been used for many years. It’s very effective and very well tolerated. There’s not any question about that. It’s a supportive-care medication that may be used or not used; a variety of drugs might be used in its place.

However, there are preclinical data —I cannot go into any kind of detail here—that have revealed that aprepitant in these preclinical settings will slow breast cancer growth and progression.

What we're looking at in this report is retrospective data linking a nationwide registry of 13,811 women diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2008 and 2020 in Norway. These are population-based data that were very well documented because that's how things work in Scandinavian countries in general, but in Norway in particular. They know what patients receive nationally, over time, and there's follow-up.

The point is that they had knowledge of the diagnoses and the therapy. These women that I'm referring to had received chemotherapy and antiemetics, which, of course, is standard of care and has been for decades. These women were followed for the development of metastatic disease and death from 1 year after diagnosis to the end of 2021, which was the duration of this particular report.

During this period of time, of these 13,811 women, 7047 were given aprepitant, which is, interestingly, 51% or about half of the population. Here's the bottom line: Aprepitant use resulted in superior distant disease-free survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.89, and breast cancer-specific survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.83.

Increasingly interesting, only nonluminal breast cancer had this demonstrated benefit, with a hazard ratio of 0.69. Again, that's a hazard ratio for metastatic disease or death of 0.69 if aprepitant was used. It was strongest in triple-negative breast cancer, with a hazard ratio of 0.66. Let me repeat that: a hazard ratio of 0.66 for the reduction in the risk of distant disease or death. This was a difference that was able to be documented with the use of aprepitant or not.

Finally, in this analysis, survival outcomes were not observed with any other class of antiemetics, only aprepitant. In the nonluminal breast cancer population, the longer duration of aprepitant use — presumably multiple cycles over time — was associated with increasingly favorable survival outcomes. This was a trend analysis, so the longer it was used, the more superior the outcomes.

I’m not surprised. To get this paper published in a high-impact journal, the authors had to conclude that clinical trials are required to confirm these findings. Really?

If you're a patient, a family member, or an oncologist caring for a woman with triple-negative breast cancer, you are going to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial to be conducted and reported maybe in 5 or 10 years? When you're talking about a drug that is widely used and is safe, you're going to make a decision to wait for the clinical trial before you conclude that aprepitant should be used in this setting, based upon these excellent data?

I would challenge that and ask, on average today, certainly in patients that I'm seeing or counseling, aprepitant should become a component of the standard of care unless there's a contraindication to the use of the drug, based upon these excellent registry and population-based data.

We don't have to wait for randomized phase 3 trials to answer every question if what we see here makes sense, based on a plausible biological explanation and well-analyzed data. Obviously, other databases can look at this and see if they come up with different answers, but we do not need to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial before we incorporate something that we believe the data support as having a favorable impact on the outcome of patients we are seeing today.

I thank you for your attention.

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

Transcript generated from video captions.

Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I'd like to discuss over the next few minutes an absolutely provocative — and I don't use that term loosely — report that I would humbly suggest may, or perhaps even should, change standard of practice in the care of patients with breast cancer. The paper was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, entitled, “Aprepitant Use During Chemotherapy and Association With Survival in Women With Early Breast Cancer.”

This is a very complex, important, and provocative topic, and I'm only going to have a short time to summarize these results, but again, I would suggest this is a topic worthy of very serious consideration in terms of the implications.

Aprepitant, as many of you know, is a standard antiemetic that has been used for many years. It’s very effective and very well tolerated. There’s not any question about that. It’s a supportive-care medication that may be used or not used; a variety of drugs might be used in its place.

However, there are preclinical data —I cannot go into any kind of detail here—that have revealed that aprepitant in these preclinical settings will slow breast cancer growth and progression.

What we're looking at in this report is retrospective data linking a nationwide registry of 13,811 women diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2008 and 2020 in Norway. These are population-based data that were very well documented because that's how things work in Scandinavian countries in general, but in Norway in particular. They know what patients receive nationally, over time, and there's follow-up.

The point is that they had knowledge of the diagnoses and the therapy. These women that I'm referring to had received chemotherapy and antiemetics, which, of course, is standard of care and has been for decades. These women were followed for the development of metastatic disease and death from 1 year after diagnosis to the end of 2021, which was the duration of this particular report.

During this period of time, of these 13,811 women, 7047 were given aprepitant, which is, interestingly, 51% or about half of the population. Here's the bottom line: Aprepitant use resulted in superior distant disease-free survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.89, and breast cancer-specific survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.83.

Increasingly interesting, only nonluminal breast cancer had this demonstrated benefit, with a hazard ratio of 0.69. Again, that's a hazard ratio for metastatic disease or death of 0.69 if aprepitant was used. It was strongest in triple-negative breast cancer, with a hazard ratio of 0.66. Let me repeat that: a hazard ratio of 0.66 for the reduction in the risk of distant disease or death. This was a difference that was able to be documented with the use of aprepitant or not.

Finally, in this analysis, survival outcomes were not observed with any other class of antiemetics, only aprepitant. In the nonluminal breast cancer population, the longer duration of aprepitant use — presumably multiple cycles over time — was associated with increasingly favorable survival outcomes. This was a trend analysis, so the longer it was used, the more superior the outcomes.

I’m not surprised. To get this paper published in a high-impact journal, the authors had to conclude that clinical trials are required to confirm these findings. Really?

If you're a patient, a family member, or an oncologist caring for a woman with triple-negative breast cancer, you are going to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial to be conducted and reported maybe in 5 or 10 years? When you're talking about a drug that is widely used and is safe, you're going to make a decision to wait for the clinical trial before you conclude that aprepitant should be used in this setting, based upon these excellent data?

I would challenge that and ask, on average today, certainly in patients that I'm seeing or counseling, aprepitant should become a component of the standard of care unless there's a contraindication to the use of the drug, based upon these excellent registry and population-based data.

We don't have to wait for randomized phase 3 trials to answer every question if what we see here makes sense, based on a plausible biological explanation and well-analyzed data. Obviously, other databases can look at this and see if they come up with different answers, but we do not need to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial before we incorporate something that we believe the data support as having a favorable impact on the outcome of patients we are seeing today.

I thank you for your attention.

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

Transcript generated from video captions.

Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I'd like to discuss over the next few minutes an absolutely provocative — and I don't use that term loosely — report that I would humbly suggest may, or perhaps even should, change standard of practice in the care of patients with breast cancer. The paper was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, entitled, “Aprepitant Use During Chemotherapy and Association With Survival in Women With Early Breast Cancer.”

This is a very complex, important, and provocative topic, and I'm only going to have a short time to summarize these results, but again, I would suggest this is a topic worthy of very serious consideration in terms of the implications.

Aprepitant, as many of you know, is a standard antiemetic that has been used for many years. It’s very effective and very well tolerated. There’s not any question about that. It’s a supportive-care medication that may be used or not used; a variety of drugs might be used in its place.

However, there are preclinical data —I cannot go into any kind of detail here—that have revealed that aprepitant in these preclinical settings will slow breast cancer growth and progression.

What we're looking at in this report is retrospective data linking a nationwide registry of 13,811 women diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2008 and 2020 in Norway. These are population-based data that were very well documented because that's how things work in Scandinavian countries in general, but in Norway in particular. They know what patients receive nationally, over time, and there's follow-up.

The point is that they had knowledge of the diagnoses and the therapy. These women that I'm referring to had received chemotherapy and antiemetics, which, of course, is standard of care and has been for decades. These women were followed for the development of metastatic disease and death from 1 year after diagnosis to the end of 2021, which was the duration of this particular report.

During this period of time, of these 13,811 women, 7047 were given aprepitant, which is, interestingly, 51% or about half of the population. Here's the bottom line: Aprepitant use resulted in superior distant disease-free survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.89, and breast cancer-specific survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.83.

Increasingly interesting, only nonluminal breast cancer had this demonstrated benefit, with a hazard ratio of 0.69. Again, that's a hazard ratio for metastatic disease or death of 0.69 if aprepitant was used. It was strongest in triple-negative breast cancer, with a hazard ratio of 0.66. Let me repeat that: a hazard ratio of 0.66 for the reduction in the risk of distant disease or death. This was a difference that was able to be documented with the use of aprepitant or not.

Finally, in this analysis, survival outcomes were not observed with any other class of antiemetics, only aprepitant. In the nonluminal breast cancer population, the longer duration of aprepitant use — presumably multiple cycles over time — was associated with increasingly favorable survival outcomes. This was a trend analysis, so the longer it was used, the more superior the outcomes.

I’m not surprised. To get this paper published in a high-impact journal, the authors had to conclude that clinical trials are required to confirm these findings. Really?

If you're a patient, a family member, or an oncologist caring for a woman with triple-negative breast cancer, you are going to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial to be conducted and reported maybe in 5 or 10 years? When you're talking about a drug that is widely used and is safe, you're going to make a decision to wait for the clinical trial before you conclude that aprepitant should be used in this setting, based upon these excellent data?

I would challenge that and ask, on average today, certainly in patients that I'm seeing or counseling, aprepitant should become a component of the standard of care unless there's a contraindication to the use of the drug, based upon these excellent registry and population-based data.

We don't have to wait for randomized phase 3 trials to answer every question if what we see here makes sense, based on a plausible biological explanation and well-analyzed data. Obviously, other databases can look at this and see if they come up with different answers, but we do not need to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial before we incorporate something that we believe the data support as having a favorable impact on the outcome of patients we are seeing today.

I thank you for your attention.

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

DNA methylation-derived biomarkers called Protein EpiScores may improve the accuracy of disease-free and overall survival prediction in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with traditional clinical risk factors alone, suggest results of a prospective study.

Although Protein EpiScores require further validation before they are ready for clinical use, the present data offer insights into the underlying processes shaping CRC outcomes, lead author Alicia R. Richards, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, and colleagues wrote in Clinical Epigenetics.

“The immediate value of our findings is highlighting biological pathways like immune suppression and coagulation as drivers of poor outcomes,” senior author Jacob K. Kresovich, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

What Are Protein EpiScores?

Previous studies have evaluated epigenetic clocks, which are derived from DNA methylation profiles, as markers for CRC risk. However, these clocks cannot pinpoint specific biological drivers of cancer progression, the investigators wrote.

Protein EpiScores may fill this gap; they were developed based on previous work suggesting that DNA methylation profiles may improve disease prediction based on circulating proteins (eg, C-reactive protein) and physiologic traits (eg, smoking status) beyond directly measuring those same variables.

“Protein EpiScores may therefore represent a complementary class of biomarker to direct measurements,” the investigators wrote.

Although Protein EpiScores have helped uncover biological processes driving various conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, this is the first study to evaluate them specifically in the context of cancer survival.

How Did This Study Evaluate Protein EpiScores in Patients With CRC?

The present study involved 136 patients with newly diagnosed CRC from the prospective ColoCare Study.

For each patient, the investigators recorded 107 Protein EpiScores from pretreatment whole blood samples. Disease-free and overall survival were monitored over a median follow-up of 7.3 years and as long as 13.8 years. During follow-up, 26% of patients experienced disease recurrence, and 35% died.

With these data, the investigators compared the predictive power of the Protein EpiScores vs traditional clinical risk factors for disease-free and overall survival. “We used the standard factors doctors routinely collect before treatment starts to assess prognosis, including tumor stage, age at cancer diagnosis, sex, body mass index, race, and tumor location,” Kresovich said. “These are well-established predictors readily available from medical records.”

What Were the Key Findings?

Adding specific Protein EpiScores to the standard clinical risk factors significantly improved prognostic accuracy for survival.

After adjusting for confounding variables, the HCII, VEGFA, CCL17, and LGALS3BP Protein EpiScores were each independently associated with worse disease-free survival, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.62 to 1.71. Adding these scores to the clinical model improved the concordance index (C-index) from 0.64 to 0.70.

The LGALS3BP Protein EpiScore was also independently linked to overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.80. Adding this score to the model raised the C-index from 0.70 to 0.75.

Finally, the HCII, LGALS3BP, MMP12, and VEGFA Protein EpiScores were tied to both disease-free and overall survival with hazard ratios above 1.50.

Are These Findings Practice-Changing?

“The improvements [in prognostic accuracy] are modest but potentially meaningful and comparable to gains from other established biomarkers,” Kresovich said. “The 6-point improvement for recurrence (C-index 0.64 to 0.70) resulted in 34% of patients being reclassified into more accurate risk categories.”

In theory, this could have a meaningful clinical impact.

“In cancer care, even incremental gains matter if they prevent undertreating high-risk patients or overtreating low-risk ones,” Kresovich said.

Despite this potential, he was clear that more work is needed.

“If our findings are validated in other epidemiologic settings, these Protein EpiScores could eventually complement existing risk tools, but we’re realistically several years from clinical implementation,” Kresovich said. “We see these current findings more as a research tool that requires validation in larger cohorts before clinical use.”

How Might These Findings Shape Future Research?

Although more studies are needed before clinical rollout, the present findings point to key biological pathways, such as those involving immune suppression and coagulation, which may be driving worse outcomes in patients with CRC.

“This information can guide basic scientists and mechanistic studies to identify potential therapeutic targets,” Kresovich said.

Beyond evaluating Protein EpiScores in larger patient populations, future studies may also need to recruit a more diverse patient population, given the present cohort was 93% White.

Although the investigators noted that “the racial homogeneity reduced potential confounding by ancestry,” they also explained that “Protein EpiScores were developed in European populations, and their translation to individuals with different ancestries has not been closely examined.”

The study was supported by the Miles for Moffitt Team Science Mechanism. The investigators reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

DNA methylation-derived biomarkers called Protein EpiScores may improve the accuracy of disease-free and overall survival prediction in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with traditional clinical risk factors alone, suggest results of a prospective study.

Although Protein EpiScores require further validation before they are ready for clinical use, the present data offer insights into the underlying processes shaping CRC outcomes, lead author Alicia R. Richards, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, and colleagues wrote in Clinical Epigenetics.

“The immediate value of our findings is highlighting biological pathways like immune suppression and coagulation as drivers of poor outcomes,” senior author Jacob K. Kresovich, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

What Are Protein EpiScores?

Previous studies have evaluated epigenetic clocks, which are derived from DNA methylation profiles, as markers for CRC risk. However, these clocks cannot pinpoint specific biological drivers of cancer progression, the investigators wrote.

Protein EpiScores may fill this gap; they were developed based on previous work suggesting that DNA methylation profiles may improve disease prediction based on circulating proteins (eg, C-reactive protein) and physiologic traits (eg, smoking status) beyond directly measuring those same variables.

“Protein EpiScores may therefore represent a complementary class of biomarker to direct measurements,” the investigators wrote.

Although Protein EpiScores have helped uncover biological processes driving various conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, this is the first study to evaluate them specifically in the context of cancer survival.

How Did This Study Evaluate Protein EpiScores in Patients With CRC?

The present study involved 136 patients with newly diagnosed CRC from the prospective ColoCare Study.

For each patient, the investigators recorded 107 Protein EpiScores from pretreatment whole blood samples. Disease-free and overall survival were monitored over a median follow-up of 7.3 years and as long as 13.8 years. During follow-up, 26% of patients experienced disease recurrence, and 35% died.

With these data, the investigators compared the predictive power of the Protein EpiScores vs traditional clinical risk factors for disease-free and overall survival. “We used the standard factors doctors routinely collect before treatment starts to assess prognosis, including tumor stage, age at cancer diagnosis, sex, body mass index, race, and tumor location,” Kresovich said. “These are well-established predictors readily available from medical records.”

What Were the Key Findings?

Adding specific Protein EpiScores to the standard clinical risk factors significantly improved prognostic accuracy for survival.

After adjusting for confounding variables, the HCII, VEGFA, CCL17, and LGALS3BP Protein EpiScores were each independently associated with worse disease-free survival, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.62 to 1.71. Adding these scores to the clinical model improved the concordance index (C-index) from 0.64 to 0.70.

The LGALS3BP Protein EpiScore was also independently linked to overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.80. Adding this score to the model raised the C-index from 0.70 to 0.75.

Finally, the HCII, LGALS3BP, MMP12, and VEGFA Protein EpiScores were tied to both disease-free and overall survival with hazard ratios above 1.50.

Are These Findings Practice-Changing?

“The improvements [in prognostic accuracy] are modest but potentially meaningful and comparable to gains from other established biomarkers,” Kresovich said. “The 6-point improvement for recurrence (C-index 0.64 to 0.70) resulted in 34% of patients being reclassified into more accurate risk categories.”

In theory, this could have a meaningful clinical impact.

“In cancer care, even incremental gains matter if they prevent undertreating high-risk patients or overtreating low-risk ones,” Kresovich said.

Despite this potential, he was clear that more work is needed.

“If our findings are validated in other epidemiologic settings, these Protein EpiScores could eventually complement existing risk tools, but we’re realistically several years from clinical implementation,” Kresovich said. “We see these current findings more as a research tool that requires validation in larger cohorts before clinical use.”

How Might These Findings Shape Future Research?

Although more studies are needed before clinical rollout, the present findings point to key biological pathways, such as those involving immune suppression and coagulation, which may be driving worse outcomes in patients with CRC.

“This information can guide basic scientists and mechanistic studies to identify potential therapeutic targets,” Kresovich said.

Beyond evaluating Protein EpiScores in larger patient populations, future studies may also need to recruit a more diverse patient population, given the present cohort was 93% White.

Although the investigators noted that “the racial homogeneity reduced potential confounding by ancestry,” they also explained that “Protein EpiScores were developed in European populations, and their translation to individuals with different ancestries has not been closely examined.”

The study was supported by the Miles for Moffitt Team Science Mechanism. The investigators reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

DNA methylation-derived biomarkers called Protein EpiScores may improve the accuracy of disease-free and overall survival prediction in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with traditional clinical risk factors alone, suggest results of a prospective study.

Although Protein EpiScores require further validation before they are ready for clinical use, the present data offer insights into the underlying processes shaping CRC outcomes, lead author Alicia R. Richards, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, and colleagues wrote in Clinical Epigenetics.

“The immediate value of our findings is highlighting biological pathways like immune suppression and coagulation as drivers of poor outcomes,” senior author Jacob K. Kresovich, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

What Are Protein EpiScores?

Previous studies have evaluated epigenetic clocks, which are derived from DNA methylation profiles, as markers for CRC risk. However, these clocks cannot pinpoint specific biological drivers of cancer progression, the investigators wrote.

Protein EpiScores may fill this gap; they were developed based on previous work suggesting that DNA methylation profiles may improve disease prediction based on circulating proteins (eg, C-reactive protein) and physiologic traits (eg, smoking status) beyond directly measuring those same variables.

“Protein EpiScores may therefore represent a complementary class of biomarker to direct measurements,” the investigators wrote.

Although Protein EpiScores have helped uncover biological processes driving various conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, this is the first study to evaluate them specifically in the context of cancer survival.

How Did This Study Evaluate Protein EpiScores in Patients With CRC?

The present study involved 136 patients with newly diagnosed CRC from the prospective ColoCare Study.

For each patient, the investigators recorded 107 Protein EpiScores from pretreatment whole blood samples. Disease-free and overall survival were monitored over a median follow-up of 7.3 years and as long as 13.8 years. During follow-up, 26% of patients experienced disease recurrence, and 35% died.

With these data, the investigators compared the predictive power of the Protein EpiScores vs traditional clinical risk factors for disease-free and overall survival. “We used the standard factors doctors routinely collect before treatment starts to assess prognosis, including tumor stage, age at cancer diagnosis, sex, body mass index, race, and tumor location,” Kresovich said. “These are well-established predictors readily available from medical records.”

What Were the Key Findings?

Adding specific Protein EpiScores to the standard clinical risk factors significantly improved prognostic accuracy for survival.

After adjusting for confounding variables, the HCII, VEGFA, CCL17, and LGALS3BP Protein EpiScores were each independently associated with worse disease-free survival, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.62 to 1.71. Adding these scores to the clinical model improved the concordance index (C-index) from 0.64 to 0.70.

The LGALS3BP Protein EpiScore was also independently linked to overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.80. Adding this score to the model raised the C-index from 0.70 to 0.75.

Finally, the HCII, LGALS3BP, MMP12, and VEGFA Protein EpiScores were tied to both disease-free and overall survival with hazard ratios above 1.50.

Are These Findings Practice-Changing?

“The improvements [in prognostic accuracy] are modest but potentially meaningful and comparable to gains from other established biomarkers,” Kresovich said. “The 6-point improvement for recurrence (C-index 0.64 to 0.70) resulted in 34% of patients being reclassified into more accurate risk categories.”

In theory, this could have a meaningful clinical impact.

“In cancer care, even incremental gains matter if they prevent undertreating high-risk patients or overtreating low-risk ones,” Kresovich said.

Despite this potential, he was clear that more work is needed.

“If our findings are validated in other epidemiologic settings, these Protein EpiScores could eventually complement existing risk tools, but we’re realistically several years from clinical implementation,” Kresovich said. “We see these current findings more as a research tool that requires validation in larger cohorts before clinical use.”

How Might These Findings Shape Future Research?

Although more studies are needed before clinical rollout, the present findings point to key biological pathways, such as those involving immune suppression and coagulation, which may be driving worse outcomes in patients with CRC.

“This information can guide basic scientists and mechanistic studies to identify potential therapeutic targets,” Kresovich said.

Beyond evaluating Protein EpiScores in larger patient populations, future studies may also need to recruit a more diverse patient population, given the present cohort was 93% White.

Although the investigators noted that “the racial homogeneity reduced potential confounding by ancestry,” they also explained that “Protein EpiScores were developed in European populations, and their translation to individuals with different ancestries has not been closely examined.”

The study was supported by the Miles for Moffitt Team Science Mechanism. The investigators reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits with reminder phone calls promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among veterans without recent primary care visits. Among 782 veterans in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), mailed FITs resulted in a 26.1% screening completion rate within 6 months, compared with 5.8% for usual care and 7.7% for mailed invitations with reminders. Improving screening in this population may help CRC morbidity and mortality among veterans.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a 3-arm pragmatic RCT at the US Department of Verterans Affairs (VA) Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center (CMC-VAMC), enrolling veterans aged 50 to 75 years without a primary care visit within 18 months.
• Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to usual care (n = 260), mailed clinic-based screening invitations with reminder calls (n = 261), or mailed home FIT outreach plus prenotification letter and reminder phone calls (n = 261).
• Outcome measures included documented completion of CRC screening within 6 months after randomization in the electronic health record (EHR); a secondary outcome was FIT return within 6 months among those mailed FIT.
• Eligibility and exclusions were based on chart review and EHR criteria (eg, excluding symptoms, family history, inflammatory bowel disease, prior resection, or being current by having undergone a colonoscopy within 10 years, sigmoidoscopy or barium enema within 5 years, or fecal occult blood testing within 1 year).

TAKEAWAY

• CRC screening completion within 6 months is 26.1% with mailed FIT vs 5.8% with usual care (RD, 20.3%; 95% CI, 14.3%-26.3%; RR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.7-7.7; P < .001).
• CRC screening completion within 6 months is 26.1% with mailed FIT vs 7.7% with mailed invitation plus reminders (RD, 18.4%; 95% CI, 12.2%-24.6%; RR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.1-5.4; P < .001).
• Screening completion does not differ between mailed invitation plus reminders (7.7%) and usual care (5.8%), and the comparison is not statistically supported (RR, 1.3; P = .39).
• No statistically significant differences in screening completion are reported by age or race/ethnicity, and investigators also report no significant differences in FIT return by age or race/ethnicity in the secondary analysis.

IN PRACTICE

“This research represents the first pragmatic RCT of mailed FIT outreach screening among veterans who have not recently (18 months) used primary care services offered by the VA. In this work, there were large relative, and absolute differences in CRC screening participation rate between veterans offered home FIT screening and those who received usual care (RR = 4.52, RD = 20.2%) or a mailed invitation plus reminders (RR = 3.40, RD = 18.4%)," wrote the authors.

SOURCE

The study was led by Matthew A. Goldshore, MD, PhD, MPH, of the CMC-VAMC . It was published online in Am J Prev Med.

LIMITATIONS

The study was not able identify differences in screening completion or FIT return by patient demographic characteristics such as age and race. The sample was randomized from predominantly male veterans cared for at a single VA medical center, limiting generalizability and reducing external validity. Follow-up and subsequent evaluation of FIT-positive participants is needed for the success of a mailed FIT intervention; of the 3 FIT-positive participants who should have received follow-up evaluation, only 1 underwent colonoscopy, highlighting the challenge of FIT to colonoscopy among participants who do not use care regularly at the CMC-VAMC.

DISCLOSURES

This trial received funding from an VA Health Services Research and Development Service award, with E. Carter Paulson, MD, MSCE, and Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, serving as principal investigators. Chyke A. Doubeni received support from grant number RO1CA 213645, and Shivan J. Mehta received support from grant number K08CA 234326, both from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no financial disclosures.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits with reminder phone calls promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among veterans without recent primary care visits. Among 782 veterans in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), mailed FITs resulted in a 26.1% screening completion rate within 6 months, compared with 5.8% for usual care and 7.7% for mailed invitations with reminders. Improving screening in this population may help CRC morbidity and mortality among veterans.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a 3-arm pragmatic RCT at the US Department of Verterans Affairs (VA) Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center (CMC-VAMC), enrolling veterans aged 50 to 75 years without a primary care visit within 18 months.
• Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to usual care (n = 260), mailed clinic-based screening invitations with reminder calls (n = 261), or mailed home FIT outreach plus prenotification letter and reminder phone calls (n = 261).
• Outcome measures included documented completion of CRC screening within 6 months after randomization in the electronic health record (EHR); a secondary outcome was FIT return within 6 months among those mailed FIT.
• Eligibility and exclusions were based on chart review and EHR criteria (eg, excluding symptoms, family history, inflammatory bowel disease, prior resection, or being current by having undergone a colonoscopy within 10 years, sigmoidoscopy or barium enema within 5 years, or fecal occult blood testing within 1 year).

TAKEAWAY

• CRC screening completion within 6 months is 26.1% with mailed FIT vs 5.8% with usual care (RD, 20.3%; 95% CI, 14.3%-26.3%; RR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.7-7.7; P < .001).
• CRC screening completion within 6 months is 26.1% with mailed FIT vs 7.7% with mailed invitation plus reminders (RD, 18.4%; 95% CI, 12.2%-24.6%; RR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.1-5.4; P < .001).
• Screening completion does not differ between mailed invitation plus reminders (7.7%) and usual care (5.8%), and the comparison is not statistically supported (RR, 1.3; P = .39).
• No statistically significant differences in screening completion are reported by age or race/ethnicity, and investigators also report no significant differences in FIT return by age or race/ethnicity in the secondary analysis.

IN PRACTICE

“This research represents the first pragmatic RCT of mailed FIT outreach screening among veterans who have not recently (18 months) used primary care services offered by the VA. In this work, there were large relative, and absolute differences in CRC screening participation rate between veterans offered home FIT screening and those who received usual care (RR = 4.52, RD = 20.2%) or a mailed invitation plus reminders (RR = 3.40, RD = 18.4%)," wrote the authors.

SOURCE

The study was led by Matthew A. Goldshore, MD, PhD, MPH, of the CMC-VAMC . It was published online in Am J Prev Med.

LIMITATIONS

The study was not able identify differences in screening completion or FIT return by patient demographic characteristics such as age and race. The sample was randomized from predominantly male veterans cared for at a single VA medical center, limiting generalizability and reducing external validity. Follow-up and subsequent evaluation of FIT-positive participants is needed for the success of a mailed FIT intervention; of the 3 FIT-positive participants who should have received follow-up evaluation, only 1 underwent colonoscopy, highlighting the challenge of FIT to colonoscopy among participants who do not use care regularly at the CMC-VAMC.

DISCLOSURES

This trial received funding from an VA Health Services Research and Development Service award, with E. Carter Paulson, MD, MSCE, and Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, serving as principal investigators. Chyke A. Doubeni received support from grant number RO1CA 213645, and Shivan J. Mehta received support from grant number K08CA 234326, both from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no financial disclosures.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits with reminder phone calls promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among veterans without recent primary care visits. Among 782 veterans in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), mailed FITs resulted in a 26.1% screening completion rate within 6 months, compared with 5.8% for usual care and 7.7% for mailed invitations with reminders. Improving screening in this population may help CRC morbidity and mortality among veterans.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a 3-arm pragmatic RCT at the US Department of Verterans Affairs (VA) Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center (CMC-VAMC), enrolling veterans aged 50 to 75 years without a primary care visit within 18 months.
• Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to usual care (n = 260), mailed clinic-based screening invitations with reminder calls (n = 261), or mailed home FIT outreach plus prenotification letter and reminder phone calls (n = 261).
• Outcome measures included documented completion of CRC screening within 6 months after randomization in the electronic health record (EHR); a secondary outcome was FIT return within 6 months among those mailed FIT.
• Eligibility and exclusions were based on chart review and EHR criteria (eg, excluding symptoms, family history, inflammatory bowel disease, prior resection, or being current by having undergone a colonoscopy within 10 years, sigmoidoscopy or barium enema within 5 years, or fecal occult blood testing within 1 year).

TAKEAWAY

• CRC screening completion within 6 months is 26.1% with mailed FIT vs 5.8% with usual care (RD, 20.3%; 95% CI, 14.3%-26.3%; RR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.7-7.7; P < .001).
• CRC screening completion within 6 months is 26.1% with mailed FIT vs 7.7% with mailed invitation plus reminders (RD, 18.4%; 95% CI, 12.2%-24.6%; RR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.1-5.4; P < .001).
• Screening completion does not differ between mailed invitation plus reminders (7.7%) and usual care (5.8%), and the comparison is not statistically supported (RR, 1.3; P = .39).
• No statistically significant differences in screening completion are reported by age or race/ethnicity, and investigators also report no significant differences in FIT return by age or race/ethnicity in the secondary analysis.

IN PRACTICE

“This research represents the first pragmatic RCT of mailed FIT outreach screening among veterans who have not recently (18 months) used primary care services offered by the VA. In this work, there were large relative, and absolute differences in CRC screening participation rate between veterans offered home FIT screening and those who received usual care (RR = 4.52, RD = 20.2%) or a mailed invitation plus reminders (RR = 3.40, RD = 18.4%)," wrote the authors.

SOURCE

The study was led by Matthew A. Goldshore, MD, PhD, MPH, of the CMC-VAMC . It was published online in Am J Prev Med.

LIMITATIONS

The study was not able identify differences in screening completion or FIT return by patient demographic characteristics such as age and race. The sample was randomized from predominantly male veterans cared for at a single VA medical center, limiting generalizability and reducing external validity. Follow-up and subsequent evaluation of FIT-positive participants is needed for the success of a mailed FIT intervention; of the 3 FIT-positive participants who should have received follow-up evaluation, only 1 underwent colonoscopy, highlighting the challenge of FIT to colonoscopy among participants who do not use care regularly at the CMC-VAMC.

DISCLOSURES

This trial received funding from an VA Health Services Research and Development Service award, with E. Carter Paulson, MD, MSCE, and Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, serving as principal investigators. Chyke A. Doubeni received support from grant number RO1CA 213645, and Shivan J. Mehta received support from grant number K08CA 234326, both from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no financial disclosures.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the federal research agency charged with leading the war against the nation’s second-largest killer, is studying ivermectin as a potential cancer treatment, according to its top official.

“There are enough reports of it, enough interest in it, that we actually did — ivermectin, in particular — did engage in sort of a better preclinical study of its properties and its ability to kill cancer cells,” said Anthony Letai, a physician the Trump administration appointed as NCI director in September.

Letai did not cite new evidence that might have prompted the institute to research the effectiveness of the antiparasitic drug against cancer. The drug, largely used to treat people or animals for infections caused by parasites, is a popular dewormer for horses.

“We’ll probably have those results in a few months,” Letai said. “So we are taking it seriously.”

He spoke about ivermectin at a January 30 event, “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” with National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior agency officials at Washington, DC’s Willard Hotel. The MAHA Institute hosted the discussion, framed by the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda of Health and Human Services (HSS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The National Cancer Institute is the largest of the NIH’s 27 branches.

During the COVID pandemic, ivermectin’s popularity surged as fringe medical groups promoted it as an effective treatment. Clinical trials have found it isn’t effective against COVID.

Ivermectin has become a symbol of resistance against the medical establishment among MAHA adherents and conservatives. Like-minded commentators and wellness and other online influencers have hyped — without evidence — ivermectin as a miracle cure for a host of diseases, including cancer. Trump officials have pointed to research on ivermectin as an example of the administration’s receptiveness to ideas the scientific establishment has rejected.

“If lots of people believe it and it’s moving public health, we as NIH have an obligation, again, to treat it seriously,” Bhattacharya said at the event. According to The Chronicle at Duke University, Bhattacharya recently said he wants the NIH to be “the research arm of MAHA.”

The decision by the world’s premier cancer research institute to study ivermectin as a cancer treatment has alarmed career scientists at the agency.

“I am shocked and appalled,” one NCI scientist said. “We are moving funds away from so much promising research in order to do a preclinical study based on nonscientific ideas. It’s absurd.”

KFF Health News granted the scientist and other NCI workers anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press and fear retaliation.

HHS and the National Cancer Institute did not answer KFF Health News’ questions on the amount of money the cancer institute is spending on the study, who is carrying it out, and whether there was new evidence that prompted NCI to look into ivermectin as an anticancer therapy. Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said NIH is dedicated to “rigorous, gold-standard research,” something the administration has repeatedly professed.

A preclinical study is an early phase of research conducted in a lab to test whether a drug or treatment may be useful and to assess potential harms. These studies take place before human clinical trials.

The scientist questioned whether there is enough initial evidence to warrant NCI’s spending of taxpayer funds to investigate the drug’s potential as a cancer treatment.

The FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals. Tablets are used to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms, and the FDA has approved ivermectin lotions to treat lice and rosacea. Two scientists involved in its discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2015, tied to the drug’s success in treating certain parasitic diseases.

The FDA has warned that large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous. Overdoses can cause seizures, comas, or death.

Kennedy, supporters of the MAHA movement, and some conservative commentators have promoted the idea that the government and pharmaceutical companies quashed ivermectin and other inexpensive, off-patent drugs because they’re not profitable for the drug industry.

“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote in an October 2024 X post that has since gone viral. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

Previous laboratory research has shown that ivermectin could have anticancer effects because it promotes cell death and inhibits the growth of tumor cells. “It actually has been studied both with NIH funds and outside of NIH funds,” Letai said.

However, there is no evidence that ivermectin is safe and effective in treating cancer in humans. Preliminary data from a small clinical trial that gave ivermectin to patients with one type of metastatic breast cancer, in combination with immunotherapy, found no significant benefit from the addition of ivermectin.

Some physicians are concerned that patients will delay or forgo effective cancer treatments, or be harmed in other ways, if they believe unfounded claims that ivermectin can treat their disease.

“Many, many, many things work in a test tube. Quite a few things work in a mouse or a monkey. It still doesn’t mean it’s going to work in people,” said Jeffery Edenfield, executive medical director of oncology for the South Carolina-based Prisma Health Cancer Institute.

Edenfield said cancer patients ask him about ivermectin “regularly,” mostly because of what they see on social media. He said he persuaded a patient to stop using it, and a colleague recently had a patient who decided “to forgo highly effective standard therapy in favor of ivermectin.”

“People come to the discussion having largely already made up their mind,” Edenfield said. “We’re in this delicate time when there’s sort of a fundamental mistrust of medicine,” he added. “Some people are just not going to believe me. I just have to keep trying.”

A June letter by clinicians at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio detailed how an adolescent patient with metastatic bone cancer started taking ivermectin “after encountering social media posts touting its benefits.” The patient — who hadn’t been given a prescription by a clinician — experienced ivermectin-related neurotoxicity and had to seek emergency care because of nausea, fatigue, and other symptoms.

“We urge the pediatric oncology community to advocate for sensible health policy that prioritizes the well-being of our patients,” the clinicians wrote. The lack of evidence about ivermectin and cancer hasn’t stopped celebrities and online influencers from promoting the notion that the drug is a cure-all. On a January 2025 episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, actor Mel Gibson claimed that a combination of drugs that included ivermectin cured 3friends with stage IV cancer. The episode has been viewed > 12 million times.

Lawmakers in a handful of states have made the drug available over the counter. And Florida — which, under Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, has become a hotbed for anti-vaccine policies and the spread of public health misinformation — announced last fall that the state plans to fund research to study the drug as a potential cancer treatment.

The Florida Department of Health did not respond to questions about that effort.

Letai, previously a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute oncologist, started at the National Cancer Institute after months of upheaval caused by Trump administration policies.

“What you’re hearing at the NIH now is an openness to ideas — even ideas that scientists would say, ‘Oh, there’s no way it could work’ — but nevertheless applying rigorous scientific methods to those ideas,” Bhattacharya said at the January 30 event.

A second NCI scientist, who was granted anonymity due to fear of retaliation, said the notion that NIH was not open to investigating the value of off-label drugs in cancer is “ridiculous.”

“This is not a new idea they came up with,” the scientist said.

Letai didn’t elaborate on whether NCI scientists are conducting the research or if it has directed funding to an outside institution. Three-fourths of the cancer institute’s research dollars go to outside scientists.

He also aimed to temper expectations.

“At least on a population level,” Letai said, “it’s not going to be a cure-all for cancer.”

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the federal research agency charged with leading the war against the nation’s second-largest killer, is studying ivermectin as a potential cancer treatment, according to its top official.

“There are enough reports of it, enough interest in it, that we actually did — ivermectin, in particular — did engage in sort of a better preclinical study of its properties and its ability to kill cancer cells,” said Anthony Letai, a physician the Trump administration appointed as NCI director in September.

Letai did not cite new evidence that might have prompted the institute to research the effectiveness of the antiparasitic drug against cancer. The drug, largely used to treat people or animals for infections caused by parasites, is a popular dewormer for horses.

“We’ll probably have those results in a few months,” Letai said. “So we are taking it seriously.”

He spoke about ivermectin at a January 30 event, “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” with National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior agency officials at Washington, DC’s Willard Hotel. The MAHA Institute hosted the discussion, framed by the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda of Health and Human Services (HSS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The National Cancer Institute is the largest of the NIH’s 27 branches.

During the COVID pandemic, ivermectin’s popularity surged as fringe medical groups promoted it as an effective treatment. Clinical trials have found it isn’t effective against COVID.

Ivermectin has become a symbol of resistance against the medical establishment among MAHA adherents and conservatives. Like-minded commentators and wellness and other online influencers have hyped — without evidence — ivermectin as a miracle cure for a host of diseases, including cancer. Trump officials have pointed to research on ivermectin as an example of the administration’s receptiveness to ideas the scientific establishment has rejected.

“If lots of people believe it and it’s moving public health, we as NIH have an obligation, again, to treat it seriously,” Bhattacharya said at the event. According to The Chronicle at Duke University, Bhattacharya recently said he wants the NIH to be “the research arm of MAHA.”

The decision by the world’s premier cancer research institute to study ivermectin as a cancer treatment has alarmed career scientists at the agency.

“I am shocked and appalled,” one NCI scientist said. “We are moving funds away from so much promising research in order to do a preclinical study based on nonscientific ideas. It’s absurd.”

KFF Health News granted the scientist and other NCI workers anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press and fear retaliation.

HHS and the National Cancer Institute did not answer KFF Health News’ questions on the amount of money the cancer institute is spending on the study, who is carrying it out, and whether there was new evidence that prompted NCI to look into ivermectin as an anticancer therapy. Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said NIH is dedicated to “rigorous, gold-standard research,” something the administration has repeatedly professed.

A preclinical study is an early phase of research conducted in a lab to test whether a drug or treatment may be useful and to assess potential harms. These studies take place before human clinical trials.

The scientist questioned whether there is enough initial evidence to warrant NCI’s spending of taxpayer funds to investigate the drug’s potential as a cancer treatment.

The FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals. Tablets are used to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms, and the FDA has approved ivermectin lotions to treat lice and rosacea. Two scientists involved in its discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2015, tied to the drug’s success in treating certain parasitic diseases.

The FDA has warned that large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous. Overdoses can cause seizures, comas, or death.

Kennedy, supporters of the MAHA movement, and some conservative commentators have promoted the idea that the government and pharmaceutical companies quashed ivermectin and other inexpensive, off-patent drugs because they’re not profitable for the drug industry.

“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote in an October 2024 X post that has since gone viral. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

Previous laboratory research has shown that ivermectin could have anticancer effects because it promotes cell death and inhibits the growth of tumor cells. “It actually has been studied both with NIH funds and outside of NIH funds,” Letai said.

However, there is no evidence that ivermectin is safe and effective in treating cancer in humans. Preliminary data from a small clinical trial that gave ivermectin to patients with one type of metastatic breast cancer, in combination with immunotherapy, found no significant benefit from the addition of ivermectin.

Some physicians are concerned that patients will delay or forgo effective cancer treatments, or be harmed in other ways, if they believe unfounded claims that ivermectin can treat their disease.

“Many, many, many things work in a test tube. Quite a few things work in a mouse or a monkey. It still doesn’t mean it’s going to work in people,” said Jeffery Edenfield, executive medical director of oncology for the South Carolina-based Prisma Health Cancer Institute.

Edenfield said cancer patients ask him about ivermectin “regularly,” mostly because of what they see on social media. He said he persuaded a patient to stop using it, and a colleague recently had a patient who decided “to forgo highly effective standard therapy in favor of ivermectin.”

“People come to the discussion having largely already made up their mind,” Edenfield said. “We’re in this delicate time when there’s sort of a fundamental mistrust of medicine,” he added. “Some people are just not going to believe me. I just have to keep trying.”

A June letter by clinicians at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio detailed how an adolescent patient with metastatic bone cancer started taking ivermectin “after encountering social media posts touting its benefits.” The patient — who hadn’t been given a prescription by a clinician — experienced ivermectin-related neurotoxicity and had to seek emergency care because of nausea, fatigue, and other symptoms.

“We urge the pediatric oncology community to advocate for sensible health policy that prioritizes the well-being of our patients,” the clinicians wrote. The lack of evidence about ivermectin and cancer hasn’t stopped celebrities and online influencers from promoting the notion that the drug is a cure-all. On a January 2025 episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, actor Mel Gibson claimed that a combination of drugs that included ivermectin cured 3friends with stage IV cancer. The episode has been viewed > 12 million times.

Lawmakers in a handful of states have made the drug available over the counter. And Florida — which, under Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, has become a hotbed for anti-vaccine policies and the spread of public health misinformation — announced last fall that the state plans to fund research to study the drug as a potential cancer treatment.

The Florida Department of Health did not respond to questions about that effort.

Letai, previously a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute oncologist, started at the National Cancer Institute after months of upheaval caused by Trump administration policies.

“What you’re hearing at the NIH now is an openness to ideas — even ideas that scientists would say, ‘Oh, there’s no way it could work’ — but nevertheless applying rigorous scientific methods to those ideas,” Bhattacharya said at the January 30 event.

A second NCI scientist, who was granted anonymity due to fear of retaliation, said the notion that NIH was not open to investigating the value of off-label drugs in cancer is “ridiculous.”

“This is not a new idea they came up with,” the scientist said.

Letai didn’t elaborate on whether NCI scientists are conducting the research or if it has directed funding to an outside institution. Three-fourths of the cancer institute’s research dollars go to outside scientists.

He also aimed to temper expectations.

“At least on a population level,” Letai said, “it’s not going to be a cure-all for cancer.”

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the federal research agency charged with leading the war against the nation’s second-largest killer, is studying ivermectin as a potential cancer treatment, according to its top official.

“There are enough reports of it, enough interest in it, that we actually did — ivermectin, in particular — did engage in sort of a better preclinical study of its properties and its ability to kill cancer cells,” said Anthony Letai, a physician the Trump administration appointed as NCI director in September.

Letai did not cite new evidence that might have prompted the institute to research the effectiveness of the antiparasitic drug against cancer. The drug, largely used to treat people or animals for infections caused by parasites, is a popular dewormer for horses.

“We’ll probably have those results in a few months,” Letai said. “So we are taking it seriously.”

He spoke about ivermectin at a January 30 event, “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” with National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior agency officials at Washington, DC’s Willard Hotel. The MAHA Institute hosted the discussion, framed by the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda of Health and Human Services (HSS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The National Cancer Institute is the largest of the NIH’s 27 branches.

During the COVID pandemic, ivermectin’s popularity surged as fringe medical groups promoted it as an effective treatment. Clinical trials have found it isn’t effective against COVID.

Ivermectin has become a symbol of resistance against the medical establishment among MAHA adherents and conservatives. Like-minded commentators and wellness and other online influencers have hyped — without evidence — ivermectin as a miracle cure for a host of diseases, including cancer. Trump officials have pointed to research on ivermectin as an example of the administration’s receptiveness to ideas the scientific establishment has rejected.

“If lots of people believe it and it’s moving public health, we as NIH have an obligation, again, to treat it seriously,” Bhattacharya said at the event. According to The Chronicle at Duke University, Bhattacharya recently said he wants the NIH to be “the research arm of MAHA.”

The decision by the world’s premier cancer research institute to study ivermectin as a cancer treatment has alarmed career scientists at the agency.

“I am shocked and appalled,” one NCI scientist said. “We are moving funds away from so much promising research in order to do a preclinical study based on nonscientific ideas. It’s absurd.”

KFF Health News granted the scientist and other NCI workers anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press and fear retaliation.

HHS and the National Cancer Institute did not answer KFF Health News’ questions on the amount of money the cancer institute is spending on the study, who is carrying it out, and whether there was new evidence that prompted NCI to look into ivermectin as an anticancer therapy. Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said NIH is dedicated to “rigorous, gold-standard research,” something the administration has repeatedly professed.

A preclinical study is an early phase of research conducted in a lab to test whether a drug or treatment may be useful and to assess potential harms. These studies take place before human clinical trials.

The scientist questioned whether there is enough initial evidence to warrant NCI’s spending of taxpayer funds to investigate the drug’s potential as a cancer treatment.

The FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals. Tablets are used to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms, and the FDA has approved ivermectin lotions to treat lice and rosacea. Two scientists involved in its discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2015, tied to the drug’s success in treating certain parasitic diseases.

The FDA has warned that large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous. Overdoses can cause seizures, comas, or death.

Kennedy, supporters of the MAHA movement, and some conservative commentators have promoted the idea that the government and pharmaceutical companies quashed ivermectin and other inexpensive, off-patent drugs because they’re not profitable for the drug industry.

“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote in an October 2024 X post that has since gone viral. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

Previous laboratory research has shown that ivermectin could have anticancer effects because it promotes cell death and inhibits the growth of tumor cells. “It actually has been studied both with NIH funds and outside of NIH funds,” Letai said.

However, there is no evidence that ivermectin is safe and effective in treating cancer in humans. Preliminary data from a small clinical trial that gave ivermectin to patients with one type of metastatic breast cancer, in combination with immunotherapy, found no significant benefit from the addition of ivermectin.

Some physicians are concerned that patients will delay or forgo effective cancer treatments, or be harmed in other ways, if they believe unfounded claims that ivermectin can treat their disease.

“Many, many, many things work in a test tube. Quite a few things work in a mouse or a monkey. It still doesn’t mean it’s going to work in people,” said Jeffery Edenfield, executive medical director of oncology for the South Carolina-based Prisma Health Cancer Institute.

Edenfield said cancer patients ask him about ivermectin “regularly,” mostly because of what they see on social media. He said he persuaded a patient to stop using it, and a colleague recently had a patient who decided “to forgo highly effective standard therapy in favor of ivermectin.”

“People come to the discussion having largely already made up their mind,” Edenfield said. “We’re in this delicate time when there’s sort of a fundamental mistrust of medicine,” he added. “Some people are just not going to believe me. I just have to keep trying.”

A June letter by clinicians at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio detailed how an adolescent patient with metastatic bone cancer started taking ivermectin “after encountering social media posts touting its benefits.” The patient — who hadn’t been given a prescription by a clinician — experienced ivermectin-related neurotoxicity and had to seek emergency care because of nausea, fatigue, and other symptoms.

“We urge the pediatric oncology community to advocate for sensible health policy that prioritizes the well-being of our patients,” the clinicians wrote. The lack of evidence about ivermectin and cancer hasn’t stopped celebrities and online influencers from promoting the notion that the drug is a cure-all. On a January 2025 episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, actor Mel Gibson claimed that a combination of drugs that included ivermectin cured 3friends with stage IV cancer. The episode has been viewed > 12 million times.

Lawmakers in a handful of states have made the drug available over the counter. And Florida — which, under Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, has become a hotbed for anti-vaccine policies and the spread of public health misinformation — announced last fall that the state plans to fund research to study the drug as a potential cancer treatment.

The Florida Department of Health did not respond to questions about that effort.

Letai, previously a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute oncologist, started at the National Cancer Institute after months of upheaval caused by Trump administration policies.

“What you’re hearing at the NIH now is an openness to ideas — even ideas that scientists would say, ‘Oh, there’s no way it could work’ — but nevertheless applying rigorous scientific methods to those ideas,” Bhattacharya said at the January 30 event.

A second NCI scientist, who was granted anonymity due to fear of retaliation, said the notion that NIH was not open to investigating the value of off-label drugs in cancer is “ridiculous.”

“This is not a new idea they came up with,” the scientist said.

Letai didn’t elaborate on whether NCI scientists are conducting the research or if it has directed funding to an outside institution. Three-fourths of the cancer institute’s research dollars go to outside scientists.

He also aimed to temper expectations.

“At least on a population level,” Letai said, “it’s not going to be a cure-all for cancer.”

TOPLINE: 

A recalibrated environmental risk score for colorectal cancer (CRC) shows improved predictive performance in a study of 227,504 male veterans. The veteran-tailored score could help personalize screening better than previous models.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Demographic, lifestyle, and CRC data from 2011 to 2022 were abstracted from survey responses and health records of 227,504 male Million Veteran Program (MVP) participants, with complete data needed to construct the environmental risk score (e-Score).
• Researchers randomly split the male sample into 2 halves to produce training and validation samples (each n = 113,752; CRC cases n = 590) using simple random sampling with strata based on the CRC variable.
• Weighting for each environmental factor's effect size was recalculated using US Department of Veterans Affairs training data to create a recalibrated e-Score, which was compared with the original weighted e-Score in the validation sample.
• Analysis included nested multiple logistic regression models testing associations between quintiles for recalibrated and original e-Scores, with likelihood ratio tests used to compare model performance.
• Factors used to construct the e-Score included BMI, height, diabetes diagnosis, aspirin use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, educational attainment, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol use, and dietary intake of fiber, calcium, folate, processed meats, red meat, fruits, vegetables, and total energy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The recalibrated e-Score showed a significant association with CRC, with higher quintiles indicating increased risk.
• In the validation sample, the recalibrated e-Score model significantly improved the base model performance (P < .001), while the original GECCO e-Score model did not show significant improvement (P = .07).
• The recalibrated e-Score model quintile 5 was associated with significantly higher odds for CRC compared with quintile 1 (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.33; P for trend < .001).
• Black participants had higher odds for CRC compared with the White reference group across all models (base model OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.92; GECCO e-Score model OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; and recalibrated e-Score model OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.82).

IN PRACTICE:

"Despite the robust methods used in the work by the GECCO study upon which our study was based, an e-Score using their study’s weighting was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer among the male veteran sample. However, data from nearly a quarter million (n = 227,504) male US veteran participants of the MVP were used to recalibrate the e-Score to be veteran specific, and the recalibrated e-Score validation showed that it was significantly associated with colorectal cancer," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April R. Williams, US Department of Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program Coordinating Center in Boston. It was published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The study's limitations include potential recall and self-selection bias due to the use of self-reported data from the MVP. The generalizability of the findings may be limited to the veteran population, and the sample of Black veterans may have been insufficient for conclusive analysis. Additionally, the study did not include female participants due to insufficient data for a veteran-specific e-Score.

DISCLOSURES:

B.A. Sullivan disclosed receiving grants from the American Gastroenterological Association. D. Lieberman reported support from Geneoscopy, UDX, and ColoWrap. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: 

A recalibrated environmental risk score for colorectal cancer (CRC) shows improved predictive performance in a study of 227,504 male veterans. The veteran-tailored score could help personalize screening better than previous models.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Demographic, lifestyle, and CRC data from 2011 to 2022 were abstracted from survey responses and health records of 227,504 male Million Veteran Program (MVP) participants, with complete data needed to construct the environmental risk score (e-Score).
• Researchers randomly split the male sample into 2 halves to produce training and validation samples (each n = 113,752; CRC cases n = 590) using simple random sampling with strata based on the CRC variable.
• Weighting for each environmental factor's effect size was recalculated using US Department of Veterans Affairs training data to create a recalibrated e-Score, which was compared with the original weighted e-Score in the validation sample.
• Analysis included nested multiple logistic regression models testing associations between quintiles for recalibrated and original e-Scores, with likelihood ratio tests used to compare model performance.
• Factors used to construct the e-Score included BMI, height, diabetes diagnosis, aspirin use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, educational attainment, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol use, and dietary intake of fiber, calcium, folate, processed meats, red meat, fruits, vegetables, and total energy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The recalibrated e-Score showed a significant association with CRC, with higher quintiles indicating increased risk.
• In the validation sample, the recalibrated e-Score model significantly improved the base model performance (P < .001), while the original GECCO e-Score model did not show significant improvement (P = .07).
• The recalibrated e-Score model quintile 5 was associated with significantly higher odds for CRC compared with quintile 1 (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.33; P for trend < .001).
• Black participants had higher odds for CRC compared with the White reference group across all models (base model OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.92; GECCO e-Score model OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; and recalibrated e-Score model OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.82).

IN PRACTICE:

"Despite the robust methods used in the work by the GECCO study upon which our study was based, an e-Score using their study’s weighting was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer among the male veteran sample. However, data from nearly a quarter million (n = 227,504) male US veteran participants of the MVP were used to recalibrate the e-Score to be veteran specific, and the recalibrated e-Score validation showed that it was significantly associated with colorectal cancer," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April R. Williams, US Department of Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program Coordinating Center in Boston. It was published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The study's limitations include potential recall and self-selection bias due to the use of self-reported data from the MVP. The generalizability of the findings may be limited to the veteran population, and the sample of Black veterans may have been insufficient for conclusive analysis. Additionally, the study did not include female participants due to insufficient data for a veteran-specific e-Score.

DISCLOSURES:

B.A. Sullivan disclosed receiving grants from the American Gastroenterological Association. D. Lieberman reported support from Geneoscopy, UDX, and ColoWrap. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: 

A recalibrated environmental risk score for colorectal cancer (CRC) shows improved predictive performance in a study of 227,504 male veterans. The veteran-tailored score could help personalize screening better than previous models.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Demographic, lifestyle, and CRC data from 2011 to 2022 were abstracted from survey responses and health records of 227,504 male Million Veteran Program (MVP) participants, with complete data needed to construct the environmental risk score (e-Score).
• Researchers randomly split the male sample into 2 halves to produce training and validation samples (each n = 113,752; CRC cases n = 590) using simple random sampling with strata based on the CRC variable.
• Weighting for each environmental factor's effect size was recalculated using US Department of Veterans Affairs training data to create a recalibrated e-Score, which was compared with the original weighted e-Score in the validation sample.
• Analysis included nested multiple logistic regression models testing associations between quintiles for recalibrated and original e-Scores, with likelihood ratio tests used to compare model performance.
• Factors used to construct the e-Score included BMI, height, diabetes diagnosis, aspirin use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, educational attainment, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol use, and dietary intake of fiber, calcium, folate, processed meats, red meat, fruits, vegetables, and total energy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The recalibrated e-Score showed a significant association with CRC, with higher quintiles indicating increased risk.
• In the validation sample, the recalibrated e-Score model significantly improved the base model performance (P < .001), while the original GECCO e-Score model did not show significant improvement (P = .07).
• The recalibrated e-Score model quintile 5 was associated with significantly higher odds for CRC compared with quintile 1 (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.33; P for trend < .001).
• Black participants had higher odds for CRC compared with the White reference group across all models (base model OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.92; GECCO e-Score model OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; and recalibrated e-Score model OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.82).

IN PRACTICE:

"Despite the robust methods used in the work by the GECCO study upon which our study was based, an e-Score using their study’s weighting was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer among the male veteran sample. However, data from nearly a quarter million (n = 227,504) male US veteran participants of the MVP were used to recalibrate the e-Score to be veteran specific, and the recalibrated e-Score validation showed that it was significantly associated with colorectal cancer," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April R. Williams, US Department of Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program Coordinating Center in Boston. It was published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The study's limitations include potential recall and self-selection bias due to the use of self-reported data from the MVP. The generalizability of the findings may be limited to the veteran population, and the sample of Black veterans may have been insufficient for conclusive analysis. Additionally, the study did not include female participants due to insufficient data for a veteran-specific e-Score.

DISCLOSURES:

B.A. Sullivan disclosed receiving grants from the American Gastroenterological Association. D. Lieberman reported support from Geneoscopy, UDX, and ColoWrap. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.