Breast Cancer

TOPLINE: 

The use of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. An analysis by Danish researchers found 14 extra cases of breast cancer per 10,000 women using this type of an intrauterine device (IUD) vs women not using hormonal contraceptives.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used nationwide registries in Denmark to identify all women aged 15-49 years who were first-time initiators of any LNG-IUS between 2000 and 2019.
• They matched 78,595 new users of LNG-IUS 1:1 with women with the same birth year who were not taking hormonal contraceptives.
• Participants were followed through 2022 or until a diagnosis of breast cancer or another malignancy, pregnancy, the initiation of postmenopausal hormone therapy, emigration, or death.
• The investigators used a Cox proportional hazards model to examine the association between the continuous use of LNG-IUS and breast cancer. Their analysis adjusted for variables such as the duration of previous hormonal contraception, fertility drugs, parity, age at first delivery, polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, and education.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the nonuse of hormonal contraceptives, the continuous use of LNG-IUS was associated with a hazard ratio for breast cancer of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5).
• The use of a levonorgestrel IUD for 5 years or less was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.5). With 5-10 years of use, the hazard ratio was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.7). And with 10-15 years of use, the hazard ratio was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.2-2.6). A test for trend was not significant, however, and “risk did not increase with duration of use,” the study authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Women should be aware that most types of hormonal contraceptive are associated with a small increased risk of breast cancer. This study adds another type of hormonal contraceptive to that list,” Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, DPhil, professor of clinical cancer epidemiology at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, England, said in comments on the research. “That has to be considered with the many benefits from hormonal contraceptives.”

Behaviors such as smoking could have differed between the groups in the study, and it has not been established that LNG-IUS use directly causes an increased risk for breast cancer, said Channa Jayasena, PhD, an endocrinologist at Imperial College London.

“Smoking, alcohol and obesity are much more important risk factors for breast cancer than contraceptive medications,” he said. “My advice for women is that breast cancer risk caused by LNG-IUS is not established but warrants a closer look.”
 

SOURCE:

Lina Steinrud Mørch, MSc, PhD, with the Danish Cancer Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The researchers published their findings in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Unmeasured confounding was possible, and the lack of a significant dose-response relationship “could indicate low statistical precision or no causal association,” the researchers noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Sundhedsdonationer.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The use of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. An analysis by Danish researchers found 14 extra cases of breast cancer per 10,000 women using this type of an intrauterine device (IUD) vs women not using hormonal contraceptives.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used nationwide registries in Denmark to identify all women aged 15-49 years who were first-time initiators of any LNG-IUS between 2000 and 2019.
• They matched 78,595 new users of LNG-IUS 1:1 with women with the same birth year who were not taking hormonal contraceptives.
• Participants were followed through 2022 or until a diagnosis of breast cancer or another malignancy, pregnancy, the initiation of postmenopausal hormone therapy, emigration, or death.
• The investigators used a Cox proportional hazards model to examine the association between the continuous use of LNG-IUS and breast cancer. Their analysis adjusted for variables such as the duration of previous hormonal contraception, fertility drugs, parity, age at first delivery, polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, and education.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the nonuse of hormonal contraceptives, the continuous use of LNG-IUS was associated with a hazard ratio for breast cancer of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5).
• The use of a levonorgestrel IUD for 5 years or less was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.5). With 5-10 years of use, the hazard ratio was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.7). And with 10-15 years of use, the hazard ratio was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.2-2.6). A test for trend was not significant, however, and “risk did not increase with duration of use,” the study authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Women should be aware that most types of hormonal contraceptive are associated with a small increased risk of breast cancer. This study adds another type of hormonal contraceptive to that list,” Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, DPhil, professor of clinical cancer epidemiology at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, England, said in comments on the research. “That has to be considered with the many benefits from hormonal contraceptives.”

Behaviors such as smoking could have differed between the groups in the study, and it has not been established that LNG-IUS use directly causes an increased risk for breast cancer, said Channa Jayasena, PhD, an endocrinologist at Imperial College London.

“Smoking, alcohol and obesity are much more important risk factors for breast cancer than contraceptive medications,” he said. “My advice for women is that breast cancer risk caused by LNG-IUS is not established but warrants a closer look.”
 

SOURCE:

Lina Steinrud Mørch, MSc, PhD, with the Danish Cancer Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The researchers published their findings in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Unmeasured confounding was possible, and the lack of a significant dose-response relationship “could indicate low statistical precision or no causal association,” the researchers noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Sundhedsdonationer.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The use of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. An analysis by Danish researchers found 14 extra cases of breast cancer per 10,000 women using this type of an intrauterine device (IUD) vs women not using hormonal contraceptives.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used nationwide registries in Denmark to identify all women aged 15-49 years who were first-time initiators of any LNG-IUS between 2000 and 2019.
• They matched 78,595 new users of LNG-IUS 1:1 with women with the same birth year who were not taking hormonal contraceptives.
• Participants were followed through 2022 or until a diagnosis of breast cancer or another malignancy, pregnancy, the initiation of postmenopausal hormone therapy, emigration, or death.
• The investigators used a Cox proportional hazards model to examine the association between the continuous use of LNG-IUS and breast cancer. Their analysis adjusted for variables such as the duration of previous hormonal contraception, fertility drugs, parity, age at first delivery, polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, and education.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the nonuse of hormonal contraceptives, the continuous use of LNG-IUS was associated with a hazard ratio for breast cancer of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5).
• The use of a levonorgestrel IUD for 5 years or less was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.5). With 5-10 years of use, the hazard ratio was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.7). And with 10-15 years of use, the hazard ratio was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.2-2.6). A test for trend was not significant, however, and “risk did not increase with duration of use,” the study authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Women should be aware that most types of hormonal contraceptive are associated with a small increased risk of breast cancer. This study adds another type of hormonal contraceptive to that list,” Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, DPhil, professor of clinical cancer epidemiology at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, England, said in comments on the research. “That has to be considered with the many benefits from hormonal contraceptives.”

Behaviors such as smoking could have differed between the groups in the study, and it has not been established that LNG-IUS use directly causes an increased risk for breast cancer, said Channa Jayasena, PhD, an endocrinologist at Imperial College London.

“Smoking, alcohol and obesity are much more important risk factors for breast cancer than contraceptive medications,” he said. “My advice for women is that breast cancer risk caused by LNG-IUS is not established but warrants a closer look.”
 

SOURCE:

Lina Steinrud Mørch, MSc, PhD, with the Danish Cancer Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The researchers published their findings in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Unmeasured confounding was possible, and the lack of a significant dose-response relationship “could indicate low statistical precision or no causal association,” the researchers noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Sundhedsdonationer.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

TOPLINE: 

A recent study found that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM_2.5) is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, with the highest risk observed among White women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have suggested that exposure to air pollution — specifically PM_2.5 — may increase the risk for breast cancer, but data are largely in populations of White women.
• The current analysis explored the potential risk among a more racially and ethnically diverse group.
• The study included 58,358 women (median age, 60.4 years at enrollment) from the California Cancer Registry, followed over an average of 19.3 years. Overall, 35% were African American, 39% were Latino, 15% were White, and 10% were Japanese American.
• Researchers measured PM_2.5 exposure using satellite-based data and geocoded addresses. Other pollutants, such as PM₁₀, NO₂, NOX, and CO, were also tracked using Environmental Protection Agency data.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 3524 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed over an average follow-up period of 19.3 years. PM_2.5 exposure was associated with a 28% increased risk for breast cancer overall (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51).
• When looking at risk by racial/ethnic group, the association between PM_2.5 exposure and breast cancer risk was strongest among White women (HR, 1.67). PM_2.5 exposure was also associated with a higher risk for breast cancer among African American women (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.89-1.46) and Latino women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.94-1.92), but the associations were not significant.
• Overall breast cancer incidence was also positively associated with exposure to NO₂, NOX, and CO (HRs, 1.09-1.11), but the associations were not significant. A meta-analysis of this study and ten other cohorts estimated a 5% increased breast cancer incidence per 10-unit increase in PM_2.5 (HR, 1.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Collective findings suggest that PM_2.5 exposure should be considered a risk factor for breast cancer, and curtailing air pollution exposures at the population level using regulatory strategies should be a priority,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anna H. Wu, PhD, MPH, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on nonresidential exposures or residential history before cohort entry, which limited the assessment of earlier exposures. The study also lacked information on specific sources of PM emissions, as well as an explanation for why White women had the highest breast cancer risk compared with other racial/ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Health Effects Air Pollution Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, USC Environmental Exposures, Host Factors, and Human Disease, and the California Air Resource Board. One author disclosed being an associate editor for the Journal of Clinical Oncology. No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A recent study found that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM_2.5) is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, with the highest risk observed among White women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have suggested that exposure to air pollution — specifically PM_2.5 — may increase the risk for breast cancer, but data are largely in populations of White women.
• The current analysis explored the potential risk among a more racially and ethnically diverse group.
• The study included 58,358 women (median age, 60.4 years at enrollment) from the California Cancer Registry, followed over an average of 19.3 years. Overall, 35% were African American, 39% were Latino, 15% were White, and 10% were Japanese American.
• Researchers measured PM_2.5 exposure using satellite-based data and geocoded addresses. Other pollutants, such as PM₁₀, NO₂, NOX, and CO, were also tracked using Environmental Protection Agency data.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 3524 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed over an average follow-up period of 19.3 years. PM_2.5 exposure was associated with a 28% increased risk for breast cancer overall (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51).
• When looking at risk by racial/ethnic group, the association between PM_2.5 exposure and breast cancer risk was strongest among White women (HR, 1.67). PM_2.5 exposure was also associated with a higher risk for breast cancer among African American women (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.89-1.46) and Latino women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.94-1.92), but the associations were not significant.
• Overall breast cancer incidence was also positively associated with exposure to NO₂, NOX, and CO (HRs, 1.09-1.11), but the associations were not significant. A meta-analysis of this study and ten other cohorts estimated a 5% increased breast cancer incidence per 10-unit increase in PM_2.5 (HR, 1.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Collective findings suggest that PM_2.5 exposure should be considered a risk factor for breast cancer, and curtailing air pollution exposures at the population level using regulatory strategies should be a priority,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anna H. Wu, PhD, MPH, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on nonresidential exposures or residential history before cohort entry, which limited the assessment of earlier exposures. The study also lacked information on specific sources of PM emissions, as well as an explanation for why White women had the highest breast cancer risk compared with other racial/ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Health Effects Air Pollution Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, USC Environmental Exposures, Host Factors, and Human Disease, and the California Air Resource Board. One author disclosed being an associate editor for the Journal of Clinical Oncology. No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A recent study found that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM_2.5) is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, with the highest risk observed among White women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have suggested that exposure to air pollution — specifically PM_2.5 — may increase the risk for breast cancer, but data are largely in populations of White women.
• The current analysis explored the potential risk among a more racially and ethnically diverse group.
• The study included 58,358 women (median age, 60.4 years at enrollment) from the California Cancer Registry, followed over an average of 19.3 years. Overall, 35% were African American, 39% were Latino, 15% were White, and 10% were Japanese American.
• Researchers measured PM_2.5 exposure using satellite-based data and geocoded addresses. Other pollutants, such as PM₁₀, NO₂, NOX, and CO, were also tracked using Environmental Protection Agency data.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 3524 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed over an average follow-up period of 19.3 years. PM_2.5 exposure was associated with a 28% increased risk for breast cancer overall (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51).
• When looking at risk by racial/ethnic group, the association between PM_2.5 exposure and breast cancer risk was strongest among White women (HR, 1.67). PM_2.5 exposure was also associated with a higher risk for breast cancer among African American women (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.89-1.46) and Latino women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.94-1.92), but the associations were not significant.
• Overall breast cancer incidence was also positively associated with exposure to NO₂, NOX, and CO (HRs, 1.09-1.11), but the associations were not significant. A meta-analysis of this study and ten other cohorts estimated a 5% increased breast cancer incidence per 10-unit increase in PM_2.5 (HR, 1.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Collective findings suggest that PM_2.5 exposure should be considered a risk factor for breast cancer, and curtailing air pollution exposures at the population level using regulatory strategies should be a priority,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anna H. Wu, PhD, MPH, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on nonresidential exposures or residential history before cohort entry, which limited the assessment of earlier exposures. The study also lacked information on specific sources of PM emissions, as well as an explanation for why White women had the highest breast cancer risk compared with other racial/ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Health Effects Air Pollution Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, USC Environmental Exposures, Host Factors, and Human Disease, and the California Air Resource Board. One author disclosed being an associate editor for the Journal of Clinical Oncology. No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For more than three decades, the federal government sought to make amends to countless Americans who developed cancer after being exposed to radiation from nuclear testing in the Southwest or while working in the uranium mining industry.

As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.

In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.

“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
 

Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure

No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?

It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.

Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.

Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:

“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”

In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.

In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.

Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
 

Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds

In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.

Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.

“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”

The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
 

Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps

Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.

They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.

In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.

A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”

Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
 

As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues

A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.

Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.

In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.

Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)

The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.

Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
 

Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West

On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”

With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”

Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”

Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For more than three decades, the federal government sought to make amends to countless Americans who developed cancer after being exposed to radiation from nuclear testing in the Southwest or while working in the uranium mining industry.

As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.

In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.

“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
 

Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure

No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?

It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.

Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.

Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:

“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”

In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.

In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.

Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
 

Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds

In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.

Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.

“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”

The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
 

Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps

Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.

They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.

In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.

A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”

Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
 

As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues

A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.

Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.

In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.

Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)

The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.

Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
 

Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West

On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”

With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”

Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”

Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For more than three decades, the federal government sought to make amends to countless Americans who developed cancer after being exposed to radiation from nuclear testing in the Southwest or while working in the uranium mining industry.

As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.

In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.

“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
 

Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure

No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?

It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.

Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.

Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:

“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”

In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.

In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.

Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
 

Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds

In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.

Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.

“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”

The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
 

Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps

Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.

They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.

In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.

A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”

Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
 

As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues

A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.

Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.

In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.

Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)

The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.

Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
 

Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West

On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”

With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”

Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”

Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and high immune infiltration showed improved disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant capecitabine. These “immune-hot” patients had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group.

METHODOLOGY:

• In some studies, adding extended capecitabine to standard adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to improve DFS in patients with early-stage TNBC, and one subset analysis suggested improved outcomes were most strongly associated with high immune infiltration.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of CBCSG010, a randomized phase 3 clinical trial, to identify the specific population that benefited from adjuvant capecitabine by analyzing the immune infiltration status of the tumors.
• The CBCSGO10 study of 585 patients originally found adjuvant capecitabine improved 5-year survival in patients with TNBC by 5.9%.
• This analysis included 207 patients (capecitabine arm, n = 104; control arm, n = 103) with serial formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, of which RNA sequencing data were available from 36 patients (capecitabine, n = 24; control, n = 12).
• Transcriptome data on the tumor microenvironment were validated with immunohistochemical staining of two markers, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and CD8, as well as stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs); patients with high PD-L1, CD8, and sTIL expression levels were defined as “immune hot.”

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with TNBC and high immune infiltration treated with capecitabine had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52; P = .049).
• In the capecitabine group, the immune-hot patients had a higher 5-year DFS rate (96.9%) compared with immune-cold patients (76.4%; HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.29; P = .028).
• Gene ontology analysis showed greater enrichment of immune-related pathways in patients without recurrence in the capecitabine group, as well as higher expression of TYMP, a key liver enzyme in the metabolism of capecitabine.
• High expression levels of immune biomarkers PD-L1, CD8, and sTILs were associated with significantly improved DFS in the capecitabine group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggested that immune-hot patients with TNBC are more likely to benefit from adjuvant capecitabine and that combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy may be expected to be more effective in immune-hot patients,” wrote the study authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Wenya Wu, MMed, and Yunsong Yang, MD, at the Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. It was published online October 2024 in JNCCN — Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the sample collection limited the availability of RNA sequencing data. External verification was challenging due to limited accessibility of transcriptome data from patients treated with additional adjuvant capecitabine or standard chemotherapy alone. The criteria for identifying immune-hot tumors require further exploration and determination.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Shanghai Science and Technology Development Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and high immune infiltration showed improved disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant capecitabine. These “immune-hot” patients had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group.

METHODOLOGY:

• In some studies, adding extended capecitabine to standard adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to improve DFS in patients with early-stage TNBC, and one subset analysis suggested improved outcomes were most strongly associated with high immune infiltration.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of CBCSG010, a randomized phase 3 clinical trial, to identify the specific population that benefited from adjuvant capecitabine by analyzing the immune infiltration status of the tumors.
• The CBCSGO10 study of 585 patients originally found adjuvant capecitabine improved 5-year survival in patients with TNBC by 5.9%.
• This analysis included 207 patients (capecitabine arm, n = 104; control arm, n = 103) with serial formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, of which RNA sequencing data were available from 36 patients (capecitabine, n = 24; control, n = 12).
• Transcriptome data on the tumor microenvironment were validated with immunohistochemical staining of two markers, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and CD8, as well as stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs); patients with high PD-L1, CD8, and sTIL expression levels were defined as “immune hot.”

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with TNBC and high immune infiltration treated with capecitabine had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52; P = .049).
• In the capecitabine group, the immune-hot patients had a higher 5-year DFS rate (96.9%) compared with immune-cold patients (76.4%; HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.29; P = .028).
• Gene ontology analysis showed greater enrichment of immune-related pathways in patients without recurrence in the capecitabine group, as well as higher expression of TYMP, a key liver enzyme in the metabolism of capecitabine.
• High expression levels of immune biomarkers PD-L1, CD8, and sTILs were associated with significantly improved DFS in the capecitabine group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggested that immune-hot patients with TNBC are more likely to benefit from adjuvant capecitabine and that combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy may be expected to be more effective in immune-hot patients,” wrote the study authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Wenya Wu, MMed, and Yunsong Yang, MD, at the Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. It was published online October 2024 in JNCCN — Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the sample collection limited the availability of RNA sequencing data. External verification was challenging due to limited accessibility of transcriptome data from patients treated with additional adjuvant capecitabine or standard chemotherapy alone. The criteria for identifying immune-hot tumors require further exploration and determination.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Shanghai Science and Technology Development Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and high immune infiltration showed improved disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant capecitabine. These “immune-hot” patients had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group.

METHODOLOGY:

• In some studies, adding extended capecitabine to standard adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to improve DFS in patients with early-stage TNBC, and one subset analysis suggested improved outcomes were most strongly associated with high immune infiltration.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of CBCSG010, a randomized phase 3 clinical trial, to identify the specific population that benefited from adjuvant capecitabine by analyzing the immune infiltration status of the tumors.
• The CBCSGO10 study of 585 patients originally found adjuvant capecitabine improved 5-year survival in patients with TNBC by 5.9%.
• This analysis included 207 patients (capecitabine arm, n = 104; control arm, n = 103) with serial formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, of which RNA sequencing data were available from 36 patients (capecitabine, n = 24; control, n = 12).
• Transcriptome data on the tumor microenvironment were validated with immunohistochemical staining of two markers, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and CD8, as well as stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs); patients with high PD-L1, CD8, and sTIL expression levels were defined as “immune hot.”

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with TNBC and high immune infiltration treated with capecitabine had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52; P = .049).
• In the capecitabine group, the immune-hot patients had a higher 5-year DFS rate (96.9%) compared with immune-cold patients (76.4%; HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.29; P = .028).
• Gene ontology analysis showed greater enrichment of immune-related pathways in patients without recurrence in the capecitabine group, as well as higher expression of TYMP, a key liver enzyme in the metabolism of capecitabine.
• High expression levels of immune biomarkers PD-L1, CD8, and sTILs were associated with significantly improved DFS in the capecitabine group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggested that immune-hot patients with TNBC are more likely to benefit from adjuvant capecitabine and that combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy may be expected to be more effective in immune-hot patients,” wrote the study authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Wenya Wu, MMed, and Yunsong Yang, MD, at the Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. It was published online October 2024 in JNCCN — Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the sample collection limited the availability of RNA sequencing data. External verification was challenging due to limited accessibility of transcriptome data from patients treated with additional adjuvant capecitabine or standard chemotherapy alone. The criteria for identifying immune-hot tumors require further exploration and determination.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Shanghai Science and Technology Development Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has updated its breast cancer screening guidelines, recommending that individuals at an average risk for breast cancer initiate mammography screening at age 40. This change reflects evolving evidence that starting earlier screening yields greater net benefits in reducing breast cancer mortality, particularly for certain racial groups with higher risk factors.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women overall and the leading cause of cancer deaths among Black and Hispanic women. Although mammography has long been recognized as a life-saving tool by detecting cancer early, there has been debate on when screening should begin due to concerns about overdiagnosis, false positives, and potential harms such as unnecessary biopsies.

Recent evidence has prompted ACOG to revise its recommendation for individuals assigned female at birth, including cisgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary individuals. This updated guidance includes individuals with dense breast tissue or a family history of breast cancer but excludes those with higher risk factors, such as a personal history of breast cancer or previous high-risk lesion on a breast biopsy, genetic mutations linked to higher cancer risk, or a history of high-dose radiation therapy to their chest at a young age.

Under the new guidelines, routine screening mammography should start at age 40 and can be performed annually or every 2 years, based on an informed, shared decision-making process that considers the benefits and potential harms of frequent screening.

Previously, ACOG recommended initiating screening between ages 40 and 50, depending on individual risk factors and preferences, with screening required by age 50 at the latest. However, several factors, including an increasing incidence of breast cancer in younger women, have influenced the decision to lower the recommended starting age.
 

Increasing Incidence Among Younger Women

Between 2015 and 2019, the incidence of invasive breast cancer in women aged 40-49 years increased by approximately 2% per year.

“There has been a concerning trend of increasing breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, and new data shows that earlier screening could make a significant difference in decreasing breast cancer deaths,” said Eve Zaritsky, MD, FACOG, coauthor of the clinical practice update. “While screening can sometimes cause anxiety for people and even unnecessary follow-up, the benefits of diagnosing breast cancer earlier outweigh those risks enough to warrant starting to get mammograms at age 40.”

Studies commissioned by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) show that starting mammography at age 40 provides a greater overall benefit than beginning at age 50. Early screening reduces the number of breast cancer deaths and increases life years gained when weighed against the harms of false positives, overdiagnosis, and benign biopsies.
 

Addressing Health Inequities

The benefits of earlier screening are expected to be particularly significant for Black women, who have disproportionately high mortality rates from breast cancer. Even though Black women have a lower overall incidence of breast cancer than White women, they have a 40% higher 5-year age-adjusted mortality rate from the disease and a 45% increased incidence of invasive breast cancer before age 50. Black women are also more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive subtypes, such as triple-negative breast cancer, which is harder to detect and treat and occurs at younger ages.

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are deeply rooted in inequities in social determinants of health, such as access to care, housing, and environmental conditions. Black women are also less likely to receive timely or comprehensive treatment than White women, which contributes to worse survival rates even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors and insurance status.

“Our updated recommendation addresses important inequities in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and death, and we hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” added coauthor Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG.

ACOG’s updated recommendation aligns with that of other leading organizations, including the USPSTF, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of Breast Imaging. This growing consensus among experts is expected to reduce confusion among clinicians and patients regarding when to begin screening, thus improving screening rates in individuals in the 40- to 49-year age group.

Zaritsky and Hill reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has updated its breast cancer screening guidelines, recommending that individuals at an average risk for breast cancer initiate mammography screening at age 40. This change reflects evolving evidence that starting earlier screening yields greater net benefits in reducing breast cancer mortality, particularly for certain racial groups with higher risk factors.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women overall and the leading cause of cancer deaths among Black and Hispanic women. Although mammography has long been recognized as a life-saving tool by detecting cancer early, there has been debate on when screening should begin due to concerns about overdiagnosis, false positives, and potential harms such as unnecessary biopsies.

Recent evidence has prompted ACOG to revise its recommendation for individuals assigned female at birth, including cisgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary individuals. This updated guidance includes individuals with dense breast tissue or a family history of breast cancer but excludes those with higher risk factors, such as a personal history of breast cancer or previous high-risk lesion on a breast biopsy, genetic mutations linked to higher cancer risk, or a history of high-dose radiation therapy to their chest at a young age.

Under the new guidelines, routine screening mammography should start at age 40 and can be performed annually or every 2 years, based on an informed, shared decision-making process that considers the benefits and potential harms of frequent screening.

Previously, ACOG recommended initiating screening between ages 40 and 50, depending on individual risk factors and preferences, with screening required by age 50 at the latest. However, several factors, including an increasing incidence of breast cancer in younger women, have influenced the decision to lower the recommended starting age.
 

Increasing Incidence Among Younger Women

Between 2015 and 2019, the incidence of invasive breast cancer in women aged 40-49 years increased by approximately 2% per year.

“There has been a concerning trend of increasing breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, and new data shows that earlier screening could make a significant difference in decreasing breast cancer deaths,” said Eve Zaritsky, MD, FACOG, coauthor of the clinical practice update. “While screening can sometimes cause anxiety for people and even unnecessary follow-up, the benefits of diagnosing breast cancer earlier outweigh those risks enough to warrant starting to get mammograms at age 40.”

Studies commissioned by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) show that starting mammography at age 40 provides a greater overall benefit than beginning at age 50. Early screening reduces the number of breast cancer deaths and increases life years gained when weighed against the harms of false positives, overdiagnosis, and benign biopsies.
 

Addressing Health Inequities

The benefits of earlier screening are expected to be particularly significant for Black women, who have disproportionately high mortality rates from breast cancer. Even though Black women have a lower overall incidence of breast cancer than White women, they have a 40% higher 5-year age-adjusted mortality rate from the disease and a 45% increased incidence of invasive breast cancer before age 50. Black women are also more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive subtypes, such as triple-negative breast cancer, which is harder to detect and treat and occurs at younger ages.

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are deeply rooted in inequities in social determinants of health, such as access to care, housing, and environmental conditions. Black women are also less likely to receive timely or comprehensive treatment than White women, which contributes to worse survival rates even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors and insurance status.

“Our updated recommendation addresses important inequities in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and death, and we hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” added coauthor Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG.

ACOG’s updated recommendation aligns with that of other leading organizations, including the USPSTF, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of Breast Imaging. This growing consensus among experts is expected to reduce confusion among clinicians and patients regarding when to begin screening, thus improving screening rates in individuals in the 40- to 49-year age group.

Zaritsky and Hill reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has updated its breast cancer screening guidelines, recommending that individuals at an average risk for breast cancer initiate mammography screening at age 40. This change reflects evolving evidence that starting earlier screening yields greater net benefits in reducing breast cancer mortality, particularly for certain racial groups with higher risk factors.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women overall and the leading cause of cancer deaths among Black and Hispanic women. Although mammography has long been recognized as a life-saving tool by detecting cancer early, there has been debate on when screening should begin due to concerns about overdiagnosis, false positives, and potential harms such as unnecessary biopsies.

Recent evidence has prompted ACOG to revise its recommendation for individuals assigned female at birth, including cisgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary individuals. This updated guidance includes individuals with dense breast tissue or a family history of breast cancer but excludes those with higher risk factors, such as a personal history of breast cancer or previous high-risk lesion on a breast biopsy, genetic mutations linked to higher cancer risk, or a history of high-dose radiation therapy to their chest at a young age.

Under the new guidelines, routine screening mammography should start at age 40 and can be performed annually or every 2 years, based on an informed, shared decision-making process that considers the benefits and potential harms of frequent screening.

Previously, ACOG recommended initiating screening between ages 40 and 50, depending on individual risk factors and preferences, with screening required by age 50 at the latest. However, several factors, including an increasing incidence of breast cancer in younger women, have influenced the decision to lower the recommended starting age.
 

Increasing Incidence Among Younger Women

Between 2015 and 2019, the incidence of invasive breast cancer in women aged 40-49 years increased by approximately 2% per year.

“There has been a concerning trend of increasing breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, and new data shows that earlier screening could make a significant difference in decreasing breast cancer deaths,” said Eve Zaritsky, MD, FACOG, coauthor of the clinical practice update. “While screening can sometimes cause anxiety for people and even unnecessary follow-up, the benefits of diagnosing breast cancer earlier outweigh those risks enough to warrant starting to get mammograms at age 40.”

Studies commissioned by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) show that starting mammography at age 40 provides a greater overall benefit than beginning at age 50. Early screening reduces the number of breast cancer deaths and increases life years gained when weighed against the harms of false positives, overdiagnosis, and benign biopsies.
 

Addressing Health Inequities

The benefits of earlier screening are expected to be particularly significant for Black women, who have disproportionately high mortality rates from breast cancer. Even though Black women have a lower overall incidence of breast cancer than White women, they have a 40% higher 5-year age-adjusted mortality rate from the disease and a 45% increased incidence of invasive breast cancer before age 50. Black women are also more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive subtypes, such as triple-negative breast cancer, which is harder to detect and treat and occurs at younger ages.

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are deeply rooted in inequities in social determinants of health, such as access to care, housing, and environmental conditions. Black women are also less likely to receive timely or comprehensive treatment than White women, which contributes to worse survival rates even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors and insurance status.

“Our updated recommendation addresses important inequities in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and death, and we hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” added coauthor Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG.

ACOG’s updated recommendation aligns with that of other leading organizations, including the USPSTF, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of Breast Imaging. This growing consensus among experts is expected to reduce confusion among clinicians and patients regarding when to begin screening, thus improving screening rates in individuals in the 40- to 49-year age group.

Zaritsky and Hill reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Excess body fat in postmenopausal women is linked to a higher risk for breast cancer, with the Clínica Universidad de Navarra-Body Adiposity Estimator (CUN-BAE) showing a stronger association than body mass index (BMI). Accurate body fat measures are crucial for effective cancer prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study including 1033 breast cancer cases and 1143 postmenopausal population controls from the MCC-Spain study.
• Participants were aged 20-85 years. BMI was calculated as the ratio of weight to height squared and categorized using World Health Organization standards: < 25, 25-29.9, 30-34.9, and ≥ 35.
• CUN-BAE was calculated using a specific equation and categorized according to the estimated percentage of body fat: < 35%, 35%-39.9%, 40%-44.9%, and ≥ 45%.
• Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated with 95% CIs for both measures (BMI and CUN-BAE) for breast cancer cases using unconditional logistic regression.

TAKEAWAY:

• Excess body weight attributable to the risk for breast cancer was 23% when assessed using a BMI value > 30 and 38% when assessed using a CUN-BAE value > 40% body fat.
• Hormone receptor stratification showed that these differences in population-attributable fractions were only observed in hormone receptor–positive cases, with an estimated burden of 19.9% for BMI and 41.9% for CUN-BAE.
• The highest categories of CUN-BAE showed an increase in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer (OR, 2.13 for body fat ≥ 45% compared with the reference category < 35%).
• No similar trend was observed for BMI, as the gradient declined after a BMI ≥ 35.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study indicate that excess body fat is a significant risk factor for hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Our findings suggest that the population impact could be underestimated when using traditional BMI estimates, and that more accurate measures of body fat, such as CUN-BAE, should be considered,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Verónica Dávila-Batista, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. It was published online in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The case-control design of the study may have limited the ability to establish causal relationships. BMI was self-reported at the time of the interview for controls and 1 year before diagnosis for cancer cases, which may have introduced recall bias. The formula for CUN-BAE was calculated from a sedentary convenience sample, which may not have been representative of the general population. The small sample size of cases that did not express hormone receptors was another limitation. The study’s findings may not be generalizable to non-White populations as non-White participants were excluded.

DISCLOSURES:

Dávila-Batista disclosed receiving grants from the Carlos III Health Institute. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Excess body fat in postmenopausal women is linked to a higher risk for breast cancer, with the Clínica Universidad de Navarra-Body Adiposity Estimator (CUN-BAE) showing a stronger association than body mass index (BMI). Accurate body fat measures are crucial for effective cancer prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study including 1033 breast cancer cases and 1143 postmenopausal population controls from the MCC-Spain study.
• Participants were aged 20-85 years. BMI was calculated as the ratio of weight to height squared and categorized using World Health Organization standards: < 25, 25-29.9, 30-34.9, and ≥ 35.
• CUN-BAE was calculated using a specific equation and categorized according to the estimated percentage of body fat: < 35%, 35%-39.9%, 40%-44.9%, and ≥ 45%.
• Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated with 95% CIs for both measures (BMI and CUN-BAE) for breast cancer cases using unconditional logistic regression.

TAKEAWAY:

• Excess body weight attributable to the risk for breast cancer was 23% when assessed using a BMI value > 30 and 38% when assessed using a CUN-BAE value > 40% body fat.
• Hormone receptor stratification showed that these differences in population-attributable fractions were only observed in hormone receptor–positive cases, with an estimated burden of 19.9% for BMI and 41.9% for CUN-BAE.
• The highest categories of CUN-BAE showed an increase in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer (OR, 2.13 for body fat ≥ 45% compared with the reference category < 35%).
• No similar trend was observed for BMI, as the gradient declined after a BMI ≥ 35.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study indicate that excess body fat is a significant risk factor for hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Our findings suggest that the population impact could be underestimated when using traditional BMI estimates, and that more accurate measures of body fat, such as CUN-BAE, should be considered,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Verónica Dávila-Batista, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. It was published online in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The case-control design of the study may have limited the ability to establish causal relationships. BMI was self-reported at the time of the interview for controls and 1 year before diagnosis for cancer cases, which may have introduced recall bias. The formula for CUN-BAE was calculated from a sedentary convenience sample, which may not have been representative of the general population. The small sample size of cases that did not express hormone receptors was another limitation. The study’s findings may not be generalizable to non-White populations as non-White participants were excluded.

DISCLOSURES:

Dávila-Batista disclosed receiving grants from the Carlos III Health Institute. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Excess body fat in postmenopausal women is linked to a higher risk for breast cancer, with the Clínica Universidad de Navarra-Body Adiposity Estimator (CUN-BAE) showing a stronger association than body mass index (BMI). Accurate body fat measures are crucial for effective cancer prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study including 1033 breast cancer cases and 1143 postmenopausal population controls from the MCC-Spain study.
• Participants were aged 20-85 years. BMI was calculated as the ratio of weight to height squared and categorized using World Health Organization standards: < 25, 25-29.9, 30-34.9, and ≥ 35.
• CUN-BAE was calculated using a specific equation and categorized according to the estimated percentage of body fat: < 35%, 35%-39.9%, 40%-44.9%, and ≥ 45%.
• Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated with 95% CIs for both measures (BMI and CUN-BAE) for breast cancer cases using unconditional logistic regression.

TAKEAWAY:

• Excess body weight attributable to the risk for breast cancer was 23% when assessed using a BMI value > 30 and 38% when assessed using a CUN-BAE value > 40% body fat.
• Hormone receptor stratification showed that these differences in population-attributable fractions were only observed in hormone receptor–positive cases, with an estimated burden of 19.9% for BMI and 41.9% for CUN-BAE.
• The highest categories of CUN-BAE showed an increase in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer (OR, 2.13 for body fat ≥ 45% compared with the reference category < 35%).
• No similar trend was observed for BMI, as the gradient declined after a BMI ≥ 35.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study indicate that excess body fat is a significant risk factor for hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Our findings suggest that the population impact could be underestimated when using traditional BMI estimates, and that more accurate measures of body fat, such as CUN-BAE, should be considered,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Verónica Dávila-Batista, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. It was published online in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The case-control design of the study may have limited the ability to establish causal relationships. BMI was self-reported at the time of the interview for controls and 1 year before diagnosis for cancer cases, which may have introduced recall bias. The formula for CUN-BAE was calculated from a sedentary convenience sample, which may not have been representative of the general population. The small sample size of cases that did not express hormone receptors was another limitation. The study’s findings may not be generalizable to non-White populations as non-White participants were excluded.

DISCLOSURES:

Dávila-Batista disclosed receiving grants from the Carlos III Health Institute. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.