Federal Practitioner

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced plans to expand preventive services, health care, and benefits for veterans with cancer.

Urethral cancers are set to be added to the list of > 300 conditions considered presumptive under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022. Veterans deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and the entire Southwest Asia theater will not need to prove their service caused their urethral cancer in order to receive treatment for it. Additionally, the VA plans to evaluate whether there is a relationship between urinary bladder and ureteral cancers and toxic exposures for these veterans, and determine whether these conditions are presumptive. The VA has already screened > 5 million veterans for toxic exposures under the PACT Act, as part of an ongoing mission to expand cancer care services.

The VA is also set to expand access to screening programs in 2024 by providing:

• genetic testing to every veteran who may need it;
• lung cancer screening programs to every VA medical center; and
• home tests for colorectal cancer to > 1 million veterans nationwide.

The VA continues to expand the reach of smoking cessation services, with ≥ 6 additional sites added to the Quit VET eReferral program by the end of 2024, and a new pilot program to integrate smoking cessation services into lung cancer screening. 

The VA has already taken steps to build on the Biden-Harris Administration Cancer Moonshot program, which has the goals of preventing ≥ 4 million cancer deaths by 2047 and to improve the experience of individuals with cancer. For instance, it has prioritized claims processing for veterans with cancer and expanded cancer risk assessments and mammograms to veterans aged < 40 years, regardless of age, symptoms, family history, or whether they are enrolled in VA health care. In September, the VA and the National Cancer Institute announced a data-sharing collaboration to better understand and treat cancer among veterans.

“VA is planting the seeds for the future of cancer care,” said VHA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. “By investing in screenings, expanding access, and embracing cutting-edge technologies, VA is revolutionizing cancer care delivery, providing the best care possible to our nation’s heroes.” 

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced plans to expand preventive services, health care, and benefits for veterans with cancer.

Urethral cancers are set to be added to the list of > 300 conditions considered presumptive under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022. Veterans deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and the entire Southwest Asia theater will not need to prove their service caused their urethral cancer in order to receive treatment for it. Additionally, the VA plans to evaluate whether there is a relationship between urinary bladder and ureteral cancers and toxic exposures for these veterans, and determine whether these conditions are presumptive. The VA has already screened > 5 million veterans for toxic exposures under the PACT Act, as part of an ongoing mission to expand cancer care services.

The VA is also set to expand access to screening programs in 2024 by providing:

• genetic testing to every veteran who may need it;
• lung cancer screening programs to every VA medical center; and
• home tests for colorectal cancer to > 1 million veterans nationwide.

The VA continues to expand the reach of smoking cessation services, with ≥ 6 additional sites added to the Quit VET eReferral program by the end of 2024, and a new pilot program to integrate smoking cessation services into lung cancer screening. 

The VA has already taken steps to build on the Biden-Harris Administration Cancer Moonshot program, which has the goals of preventing ≥ 4 million cancer deaths by 2047 and to improve the experience of individuals with cancer. For instance, it has prioritized claims processing for veterans with cancer and expanded cancer risk assessments and mammograms to veterans aged < 40 years, regardless of age, symptoms, family history, or whether they are enrolled in VA health care. In September, the VA and the National Cancer Institute announced a data-sharing collaboration to better understand and treat cancer among veterans.

“VA is planting the seeds for the future of cancer care,” said VHA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. “By investing in screenings, expanding access, and embracing cutting-edge technologies, VA is revolutionizing cancer care delivery, providing the best care possible to our nation’s heroes.” 

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced plans to expand preventive services, health care, and benefits for veterans with cancer.

Urethral cancers are set to be added to the list of > 300 conditions considered presumptive under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022. Veterans deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and the entire Southwest Asia theater will not need to prove their service caused their urethral cancer in order to receive treatment for it. Additionally, the VA plans to evaluate whether there is a relationship between urinary bladder and ureteral cancers and toxic exposures for these veterans, and determine whether these conditions are presumptive. The VA has already screened > 5 million veterans for toxic exposures under the PACT Act, as part of an ongoing mission to expand cancer care services.

The VA is also set to expand access to screening programs in 2024 by providing:

• genetic testing to every veteran who may need it;
• lung cancer screening programs to every VA medical center; and
• home tests for colorectal cancer to > 1 million veterans nationwide.

The VA continues to expand the reach of smoking cessation services, with ≥ 6 additional sites added to the Quit VET eReferral program by the end of 2024, and a new pilot program to integrate smoking cessation services into lung cancer screening. 

The VA has already taken steps to build on the Biden-Harris Administration Cancer Moonshot program, which has the goals of preventing ≥ 4 million cancer deaths by 2047 and to improve the experience of individuals with cancer. For instance, it has prioritized claims processing for veterans with cancer and expanded cancer risk assessments and mammograms to veterans aged < 40 years, regardless of age, symptoms, family history, or whether they are enrolled in VA health care. In September, the VA and the National Cancer Institute announced a data-sharing collaboration to better understand and treat cancer among veterans.

“VA is planting the seeds for the future of cancer care,” said VHA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. “By investing in screenings, expanding access, and embracing cutting-edge technologies, VA is revolutionizing cancer care delivery, providing the best care possible to our nation’s heroes.” 

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with accelerated brain aging and a higher risk for early dementia, regardless of income level or education, new research suggested.

Analysis of two datasets revealed that people living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a more than 20% higher risk for dementia than those in other areas and measurably poorer brain health as early as age 45, regardless of their own personal income and education.

“If you want to prevent dementia and you’re not asking someone about their neighborhood, you’re missing information that’s important to know,” lead author Aaron Reuben, PhD, postdoctoral scholar in neuropsychology and environmental health at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Higher Risk in Men

Few interventions exist to halt or delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), which has increasingly led to a focus on primary prevention.

Although previous research pointed to a link between socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and a greater risk for cognitive deficits, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and poor brain health, the timeline for the emergence of that risk is unknown.

To fill in the gaps, investigators studied data on all 1.4 million New Zealand residents, dividing neighborhoods into quintiles based on level of disadvantage (assessed by the New Zealand Index of Deprivation) to see whether dementia diagnoses followed neighborhood socioeconomic gradients.

After adjusting for covariates, they found that overall, those living in disadvantaged areas were slightly more likely to develop dementia across the 20-year study period (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10).

The more disadvantaged the neighborhood, the higher the dementia risk, with a 43% higher risk for ADRD among those in the highest quintile than among those in the lowest quintile (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.49).

The effect was larger in men than in women and in younger vs older individuals, with the youngest age group showing 21% greater risk in women and 26% greater risk in men vs the oldest age group.

Dementia Prevention Starts Early

Researchers then turned to the Dunedin Study, a cohort of 938 New Zealanders (50% female) followed from birth to age 45 to track their psychological, social, and physiological health with brain scans, memory tests, and cognitive self-assessments.

The analysis suggested that by age 45, those living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods across adulthood had accumulated a significantly greater number of midlife risk factors for later ADRD.

They also had worse structural brain integrity, with each standard deviation increase in neighborhood disadvantage resulting in a thinner cortex, greater white matter hyperintensities volume, and older brain age.

Those living in poorer areas had lower cognitive test scores, reported more issues with everyday cognitive function, and showed a greater reduction in IQ from childhood to midlife. Analysis of brain scans also revealed mean brain ages 2.98 years older than those living in the least disadvantaged areas (P = .001).

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which could not establish causation, and the fact that the researchers did not have access to individual-level socioeconomic information for the entire population. Additionally, brain-integrity measures in the Dunedin Study were largely cross-sectional.

“If you want to truly prevent dementia, you’ve got to start early because 20 years before anyone will get a diagnosis, we’re seeing dementia’s emergence,” Dr. Reuben said. “And it could be even earlier.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes for Health; UK Medical Research Council; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Brain Research New Zealand; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, & Employment; and the Duke University and the University of North Carolina Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with accelerated brain aging and a higher risk for early dementia, regardless of income level or education, new research suggested.

Analysis of two datasets revealed that people living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a more than 20% higher risk for dementia than those in other areas and measurably poorer brain health as early as age 45, regardless of their own personal income and education.

“If you want to prevent dementia and you’re not asking someone about their neighborhood, you’re missing information that’s important to know,” lead author Aaron Reuben, PhD, postdoctoral scholar in neuropsychology and environmental health at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Higher Risk in Men

Few interventions exist to halt or delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), which has increasingly led to a focus on primary prevention.

Although previous research pointed to a link between socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and a greater risk for cognitive deficits, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and poor brain health, the timeline for the emergence of that risk is unknown.

To fill in the gaps, investigators studied data on all 1.4 million New Zealand residents, dividing neighborhoods into quintiles based on level of disadvantage (assessed by the New Zealand Index of Deprivation) to see whether dementia diagnoses followed neighborhood socioeconomic gradients.

After adjusting for covariates, they found that overall, those living in disadvantaged areas were slightly more likely to develop dementia across the 20-year study period (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10).

The more disadvantaged the neighborhood, the higher the dementia risk, with a 43% higher risk for ADRD among those in the highest quintile than among those in the lowest quintile (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.49).

The effect was larger in men than in women and in younger vs older individuals, with the youngest age group showing 21% greater risk in women and 26% greater risk in men vs the oldest age group.

Dementia Prevention Starts Early

Researchers then turned to the Dunedin Study, a cohort of 938 New Zealanders (50% female) followed from birth to age 45 to track their psychological, social, and physiological health with brain scans, memory tests, and cognitive self-assessments.

The analysis suggested that by age 45, those living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods across adulthood had accumulated a significantly greater number of midlife risk factors for later ADRD.

They also had worse structural brain integrity, with each standard deviation increase in neighborhood disadvantage resulting in a thinner cortex, greater white matter hyperintensities volume, and older brain age.

Those living in poorer areas had lower cognitive test scores, reported more issues with everyday cognitive function, and showed a greater reduction in IQ from childhood to midlife. Analysis of brain scans also revealed mean brain ages 2.98 years older than those living in the least disadvantaged areas (P = .001).

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which could not establish causation, and the fact that the researchers did not have access to individual-level socioeconomic information for the entire population. Additionally, brain-integrity measures in the Dunedin Study were largely cross-sectional.

“If you want to truly prevent dementia, you’ve got to start early because 20 years before anyone will get a diagnosis, we’re seeing dementia’s emergence,” Dr. Reuben said. “And it could be even earlier.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes for Health; UK Medical Research Council; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Brain Research New Zealand; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, & Employment; and the Duke University and the University of North Carolina Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with accelerated brain aging and a higher risk for early dementia, regardless of income level or education, new research suggested.

Analysis of two datasets revealed that people living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a more than 20% higher risk for dementia than those in other areas and measurably poorer brain health as early as age 45, regardless of their own personal income and education.

“If you want to prevent dementia and you’re not asking someone about their neighborhood, you’re missing information that’s important to know,” lead author Aaron Reuben, PhD, postdoctoral scholar in neuropsychology and environmental health at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Higher Risk in Men

Few interventions exist to halt or delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), which has increasingly led to a focus on primary prevention.

Although previous research pointed to a link between socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and a greater risk for cognitive deficits, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and poor brain health, the timeline for the emergence of that risk is unknown.

To fill in the gaps, investigators studied data on all 1.4 million New Zealand residents, dividing neighborhoods into quintiles based on level of disadvantage (assessed by the New Zealand Index of Deprivation) to see whether dementia diagnoses followed neighborhood socioeconomic gradients.

After adjusting for covariates, they found that overall, those living in disadvantaged areas were slightly more likely to develop dementia across the 20-year study period (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10).

The more disadvantaged the neighborhood, the higher the dementia risk, with a 43% higher risk for ADRD among those in the highest quintile than among those in the lowest quintile (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.49).

The effect was larger in men than in women and in younger vs older individuals, with the youngest age group showing 21% greater risk in women and 26% greater risk in men vs the oldest age group.

Dementia Prevention Starts Early

Researchers then turned to the Dunedin Study, a cohort of 938 New Zealanders (50% female) followed from birth to age 45 to track their psychological, social, and physiological health with brain scans, memory tests, and cognitive self-assessments.

The analysis suggested that by age 45, those living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods across adulthood had accumulated a significantly greater number of midlife risk factors for later ADRD.

They also had worse structural brain integrity, with each standard deviation increase in neighborhood disadvantage resulting in a thinner cortex, greater white matter hyperintensities volume, and older brain age.

Those living in poorer areas had lower cognitive test scores, reported more issues with everyday cognitive function, and showed a greater reduction in IQ from childhood to midlife. Analysis of brain scans also revealed mean brain ages 2.98 years older than those living in the least disadvantaged areas (P = .001).

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which could not establish causation, and the fact that the researchers did not have access to individual-level socioeconomic information for the entire population. Additionally, brain-integrity measures in the Dunedin Study were largely cross-sectional.

“If you want to truly prevent dementia, you’ve got to start early because 20 years before anyone will get a diagnosis, we’re seeing dementia’s emergence,” Dr. Reuben said. “And it could be even earlier.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes for Health; UK Medical Research Council; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Brain Research New Zealand; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, & Employment; and the Duke University and the University of North Carolina Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding low-dose radiation to the current standard first-line treatment, durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, appears to improve survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), suggested new findings from a small, single-arm study.

The analysis, presented at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress, revealed that low-dose radiation improved patients’ median progression-free and overall survival compared with standard first-line treatment, reported in a 2019 trial, lead author Yan Zhang, MD, reported.

The standard first-line treatment results came from the 2019 CASPIAN trial, which found that patients receiving the first-line regimen had a median progression-free survival of 5 months and a median overall survival of 13 months, with 54% of patient alive at 1 year.

The latest data, which included a small cohort of 30 patients, revealed that adding low-dose radiation to the standard first-line therapy led to a higher median progression-free survival of 8.3 months and extended median overall survival beyond the study follow-up period of 17.3 months. Overall, 66% of patients were alive at 1 year.

These are “promising” improvements over CASPIAN, Dr. Zhang, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, said at the Congress, which was organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study discussant Gerry Hanna, PhD, MBBS, a radiation oncologist at Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, agreed. Although there were just 30 patients, “you cannot deny these are [strong] results in terms of extensive-stage small cell cancer,” Dr. Hanna said.

Although standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, the benefits aren’t durable for many patients.

This problem led Dr. Zhang and his colleagues to look for ways to improve outcomes. Because the CASPIAN trial did not include radiation to the primary tumor, it seemed a logical strategy to explore.

In the current single-arm study, Dr. Zhang and his team added 15 Gy radiation in five fractions to the primary lung tumors of 30 patients during the first cycle of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum.

Subjects received 1500 mg of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum every 3 weeks for four cycles. Low-dose radiation to the primary tumor was delivered over 5 days at the start of treatment. Patients then continued with durvalumab maintenance every 4 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity.

Six patients (20%) had liver metastases at the baseline, and three (10%) had brain metastases. Over half had prophylactic cranial radiation. Performance scores were 0-1, and all but one of the participants were men.

Six- and 12-month progression-free survival rates were 57% and 40%, respectively. Overall survival was 90% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months. Median overall survival was 13 months in the CASPIAN trial but not reached in Dr. Zhang’s trial after a median follow-up of 17.3 months, with the earliest deaths occurring at 10.8 months.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of patients, most frequently hematologic toxicities. Five patients (16.7%) had severe adverse reactions to radiation. Although the overall dose of radiation was low, at 3 Gy each, the fractions were on the large side.

Hanna wanted more information on the radiotoxicity issue, but even so, he said that adding low-dose radiation to our durvalumab-chemotherapy doublet warrants further investigation.

Both Dr. Hanna and Dr. Zhang thought that instead of killing cancer cells directly, the greatest benefit of upfront radiation, and the peritumoral inflammation it causes, is to augment durvalumab’s effect.

Overall, Dr. Hanna stressed that we haven’t had results like these before in a SCLC study, particularly for novel agents, let alone radiation.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Zhang and Dr. Hanna didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding low-dose radiation to the current standard first-line treatment, durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, appears to improve survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), suggested new findings from a small, single-arm study.

The analysis, presented at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress, revealed that low-dose radiation improved patients’ median progression-free and overall survival compared with standard first-line treatment, reported in a 2019 trial, lead author Yan Zhang, MD, reported.

The standard first-line treatment results came from the 2019 CASPIAN trial, which found that patients receiving the first-line regimen had a median progression-free survival of 5 months and a median overall survival of 13 months, with 54% of patient alive at 1 year.

The latest data, which included a small cohort of 30 patients, revealed that adding low-dose radiation to the standard first-line therapy led to a higher median progression-free survival of 8.3 months and extended median overall survival beyond the study follow-up period of 17.3 months. Overall, 66% of patients were alive at 1 year.

These are “promising” improvements over CASPIAN, Dr. Zhang, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, said at the Congress, which was organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study discussant Gerry Hanna, PhD, MBBS, a radiation oncologist at Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, agreed. Although there were just 30 patients, “you cannot deny these are [strong] results in terms of extensive-stage small cell cancer,” Dr. Hanna said.

Although standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, the benefits aren’t durable for many patients.

This problem led Dr. Zhang and his colleagues to look for ways to improve outcomes. Because the CASPIAN trial did not include radiation to the primary tumor, it seemed a logical strategy to explore.

In the current single-arm study, Dr. Zhang and his team added 15 Gy radiation in five fractions to the primary lung tumors of 30 patients during the first cycle of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum.

Subjects received 1500 mg of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum every 3 weeks for four cycles. Low-dose radiation to the primary tumor was delivered over 5 days at the start of treatment. Patients then continued with durvalumab maintenance every 4 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity.

Six patients (20%) had liver metastases at the baseline, and three (10%) had brain metastases. Over half had prophylactic cranial radiation. Performance scores were 0-1, and all but one of the participants were men.

Six- and 12-month progression-free survival rates were 57% and 40%, respectively. Overall survival was 90% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months. Median overall survival was 13 months in the CASPIAN trial but not reached in Dr. Zhang’s trial after a median follow-up of 17.3 months, with the earliest deaths occurring at 10.8 months.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of patients, most frequently hematologic toxicities. Five patients (16.7%) had severe adverse reactions to radiation. Although the overall dose of radiation was low, at 3 Gy each, the fractions were on the large side.

Hanna wanted more information on the radiotoxicity issue, but even so, he said that adding low-dose radiation to our durvalumab-chemotherapy doublet warrants further investigation.

Both Dr. Hanna and Dr. Zhang thought that instead of killing cancer cells directly, the greatest benefit of upfront radiation, and the peritumoral inflammation it causes, is to augment durvalumab’s effect.

Overall, Dr. Hanna stressed that we haven’t had results like these before in a SCLC study, particularly for novel agents, let alone radiation.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Zhang and Dr. Hanna didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding low-dose radiation to the current standard first-line treatment, durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, appears to improve survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), suggested new findings from a small, single-arm study.

The analysis, presented at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress, revealed that low-dose radiation improved patients’ median progression-free and overall survival compared with standard first-line treatment, reported in a 2019 trial, lead author Yan Zhang, MD, reported.

The standard first-line treatment results came from the 2019 CASPIAN trial, which found that patients receiving the first-line regimen had a median progression-free survival of 5 months and a median overall survival of 13 months, with 54% of patient alive at 1 year.

The latest data, which included a small cohort of 30 patients, revealed that adding low-dose radiation to the standard first-line therapy led to a higher median progression-free survival of 8.3 months and extended median overall survival beyond the study follow-up period of 17.3 months. Overall, 66% of patients were alive at 1 year.

These are “promising” improvements over CASPIAN, Dr. Zhang, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, said at the Congress, which was organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study discussant Gerry Hanna, PhD, MBBS, a radiation oncologist at Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, agreed. Although there were just 30 patients, “you cannot deny these are [strong] results in terms of extensive-stage small cell cancer,” Dr. Hanna said.

Although standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, the benefits aren’t durable for many patients.

This problem led Dr. Zhang and his colleagues to look for ways to improve outcomes. Because the CASPIAN trial did not include radiation to the primary tumor, it seemed a logical strategy to explore.

In the current single-arm study, Dr. Zhang and his team added 15 Gy radiation in five fractions to the primary lung tumors of 30 patients during the first cycle of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum.

Subjects received 1500 mg of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum every 3 weeks for four cycles. Low-dose radiation to the primary tumor was delivered over 5 days at the start of treatment. Patients then continued with durvalumab maintenance every 4 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity.

Six patients (20%) had liver metastases at the baseline, and three (10%) had brain metastases. Over half had prophylactic cranial radiation. Performance scores were 0-1, and all but one of the participants were men.

Six- and 12-month progression-free survival rates were 57% and 40%, respectively. Overall survival was 90% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months. Median overall survival was 13 months in the CASPIAN trial but not reached in Dr. Zhang’s trial after a median follow-up of 17.3 months, with the earliest deaths occurring at 10.8 months.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of patients, most frequently hematologic toxicities. Five patients (16.7%) had severe adverse reactions to radiation. Although the overall dose of radiation was low, at 3 Gy each, the fractions were on the large side.

Hanna wanted more information on the radiotoxicity issue, but even so, he said that adding low-dose radiation to our durvalumab-chemotherapy doublet warrants further investigation.

Both Dr. Hanna and Dr. Zhang thought that instead of killing cancer cells directly, the greatest benefit of upfront radiation, and the peritumoral inflammation it causes, is to augment durvalumab’s effect.

Overall, Dr. Hanna stressed that we haven’t had results like these before in a SCLC study, particularly for novel agents, let alone radiation.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Zhang and Dr. Hanna didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin D deficiency is independently linked to the risk for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) by potentially affecting large nerve fibers in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Although previous research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk for peripheral neuropathy, its effects on large and small nerve fiber lesions have not been well explored yet.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the association between vitamin D deficiency and DPN development in 230 older patients (mean age, 67 years) with T2D for about 15 years who were recruited from Beijing Hospital between 2020 and 2023.
• All patients were evaluated for DPN based on poor blood sugar control or symptoms such as pain and sensory abnormalities, of which 175 patients diagnosed with DPN were propensity-matched with 55 patients without DPN.
• Vitamin D deficiency, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D circulating levels below 20 ng/mL, was reported in 169 patients.
• Large nerve fiber lesions were evaluated using electromyography, and small nerve fiber lesions were assessed by measuring skin conductance.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin D deficiency was more likely to affect large fiber lesions, suggested by longer median sensory nerve latency, minimum latency of the F-wave, and median nerve motor evoked potential latency than those in the vitamin D–sufficient group.
• Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency was linked to large fiber neuropathy with increased odds of prolongation of motor nerve latency (odds ratio, 1.362; P = .038).
• The electrochemical skin conductance, which indicates damage to small nerve fibers, was comparable between patients with and without vitamin D deficiency.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sijia Fei, Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, and was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Skin biopsy, the “gold-standard” for quantifying intraepidermal nerve fiber density, was not used to assess small nerve fiber lesions. Additionally, a causal link between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic nerve damage was not established owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Some patients with T2D may have been receiving insulin therapy, which may have affected vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China National Key R&D Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin D deficiency is independently linked to the risk for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) by potentially affecting large nerve fibers in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Although previous research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk for peripheral neuropathy, its effects on large and small nerve fiber lesions have not been well explored yet.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the association between vitamin D deficiency and DPN development in 230 older patients (mean age, 67 years) with T2D for about 15 years who were recruited from Beijing Hospital between 2020 and 2023.
• All patients were evaluated for DPN based on poor blood sugar control or symptoms such as pain and sensory abnormalities, of which 175 patients diagnosed with DPN were propensity-matched with 55 patients without DPN.
• Vitamin D deficiency, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D circulating levels below 20 ng/mL, was reported in 169 patients.
• Large nerve fiber lesions were evaluated using electromyography, and small nerve fiber lesions were assessed by measuring skin conductance.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin D deficiency was more likely to affect large fiber lesions, suggested by longer median sensory nerve latency, minimum latency of the F-wave, and median nerve motor evoked potential latency than those in the vitamin D–sufficient group.
• Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency was linked to large fiber neuropathy with increased odds of prolongation of motor nerve latency (odds ratio, 1.362; P = .038).
• The electrochemical skin conductance, which indicates damage to small nerve fibers, was comparable between patients with and without vitamin D deficiency.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sijia Fei, Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, and was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Skin biopsy, the “gold-standard” for quantifying intraepidermal nerve fiber density, was not used to assess small nerve fiber lesions. Additionally, a causal link between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic nerve damage was not established owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Some patients with T2D may have been receiving insulin therapy, which may have affected vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China National Key R&D Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin D deficiency is independently linked to the risk for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) by potentially affecting large nerve fibers in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Although previous research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk for peripheral neuropathy, its effects on large and small nerve fiber lesions have not been well explored yet.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the association between vitamin D deficiency and DPN development in 230 older patients (mean age, 67 years) with T2D for about 15 years who were recruited from Beijing Hospital between 2020 and 2023.
• All patients were evaluated for DPN based on poor blood sugar control or symptoms such as pain and sensory abnormalities, of which 175 patients diagnosed with DPN were propensity-matched with 55 patients without DPN.
• Vitamin D deficiency, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D circulating levels below 20 ng/mL, was reported in 169 patients.
• Large nerve fiber lesions were evaluated using electromyography, and small nerve fiber lesions were assessed by measuring skin conductance.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin D deficiency was more likely to affect large fiber lesions, suggested by longer median sensory nerve latency, minimum latency of the F-wave, and median nerve motor evoked potential latency than those in the vitamin D–sufficient group.
• Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency was linked to large fiber neuropathy with increased odds of prolongation of motor nerve latency (odds ratio, 1.362; P = .038).
• The electrochemical skin conductance, which indicates damage to small nerve fibers, was comparable between patients with and without vitamin D deficiency.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sijia Fei, Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, and was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Skin biopsy, the “gold-standard” for quantifying intraepidermal nerve fiber density, was not used to assess small nerve fiber lesions. Additionally, a causal link between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic nerve damage was not established owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Some patients with T2D may have been receiving insulin therapy, which may have affected vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China National Key R&D Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lowering the recommended age for baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) would reduce prostate cancer deaths by about 30% in Black men without significantly increasing the rate of overdiagnosis, according to new screening guidelines from the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Specifically, baseline PSA testing in Black men should begin at age 40-45, sooner than current guidelines recommend, and should be followed by regular screening intervals, preferably annually, at least until age 70, a multidisciplinary panel of experts and patient advocates determined based on a comprehensive literature review.

The panel’s findings were presented in a poster at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“Black men in the United States are considered a high-risk population for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer,” wrote lead author Isla Garraway, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues. Specifically, Black men are about two times more likely to be diagnosed with and die from prostate cancer than White men. But, the authors continued, “few guidelines have outlined specific recommendations for PSA-based prostate cancer screening among Black men.”

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, which are currently being updated, set the PSA screening start age at 55. The task force recommendations, which dictate insurance coverage in the United States, acknowledged “a potential mortality benefit for African American men when beginning screening before age 55 years” but did not explicitly recommend screening earlier.

Current guidelines from the American Cancer Society call for discussions about screening in average-risk men to begin at age 50-55. The recommendations do specify lowering the age to 45 for those at a high risk for prostate cancer, which includes Black men as well as those with a first-degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 65. In some cases, screening can begin at age 40 in the highest risk men — those with more than one first-degree relative who had prostate cancer at a young age.

The Prostate Cancer Foundation “wanted to address the confusion around different guideline statements and the lack of clarity around screening recommendations for Black men,” said William K. Oh, MD, of The Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who chaired the panel for the new guidelines. “We thus convened a distinguished panel of experts from diverse backgrounds and expertise to create six guidelines statements to help Black men, their families, and their healthcare providers to consider options for prostate cancer screening based on the best available evidence.”

After reviewing 287, the expert panel developed six new guideline statements, reaching at least 80% consensus among panel members, addressing screening for Black men:

• Because Black men are at a high risk for prostate cancer, the benefits of screening generally outweigh the risks.
• PSA testing should be considered first line for prostate cancer screening, although some providers may recommend an optional digital rectal exam in addition to the PSA test.
• Black men should engage in shared decision-making with their healthcare providers and other trusted sources of information to learn about the pros and cons of screening.
• For Black men who elect screening, a baseline PSA test should be done between ages 40 and 45, and annual PSA screening should be strongly considered based on the PSA value and the individual’s health status.
• Black men over age 70 who have been undergoing prostate cancer screening should talk with their healthcare provider about whether to continue PSA testing and make an informed decision based on their age, life expectancy, health status, family history, and prior PSA levels.
• Black men who are at even higher risk due to a strong family history and/or known carriers of high-risk genetic variants should consider initiating annual PSA screening as early as age 40.

These statements are based on “the best available evidence, which overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Black men in the US could benefit from a risk-adapted PSA screening,” the investigators concluded, noting that the latest evidence “warrants revisiting current recommendations for early [prostate cancer] detection in Black men from other national guideline groups.”

“We believe that the outcome of these more directed guidelines will be to give clarity to these men,” added Oh, who is also chief medical officer for the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

This research was funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs, Jean Perkins Foundation, and Department of Defense. Garraway reported having no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.