Genitourinary Cancer

Thanks to the continuously improving treatment options for cancer, the number of cancer survivors is increasing, and a large proportion of survivors is confronted with the long-term effects of cancer treatment. Especially for young patients, the question of the impact of therapy on fertility arises.

Dose adjustment or modification of the treatment regimen can achieve a lot. But experts at the congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2024 noted that knowledge about newer treatment options like immunotherapies is still insufficient.
 

Therapy Selection

The question of preserving fertility must be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment, said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, medical oncology consultant at the University of Genoa in Genoa, Italy. A patient’s age, the type of therapy, and the dose are crucial in determining whether or how much fertility is affected. “Preserving fertility is also an aim of cancer therapy,” he said.

Lambertini, who is also a member of the ESMO Guideline Group on fertility preservation in cancer patients, referred to the 2020 ESMO guidelines, which list the gonadotoxicity of a substance depending on the treatment regimen and the patient’s age.

Isabelle Demeestere, MD, PhD, director of the research lab for human reproduction at the Erasmus Hospital of the Free University of Brussels in Brussels, Belgium, pointed out the limitations of general guidelines. “Therapies change over time, and a classification must be updated regularly.”

Knowledge gaps related to well-known therapies and many novel options persist. “For many FDA-approved medications, there are either no fertility data or only preclinical data available,” she added.
 

Chemotherapies and Immunotherapies

Chemotherapies with alkylating or platinum-containing substances are known for their effects on oocytes, follicle maturation, and spermatogenesis, said Demeestere.

Chemotherapy is gonadotoxic and leads to a temporary decrease in sperm quality or temporary azoospermia in men.

These effects, however, can lead to permanent azoospermia and endocrine disorders, depending on the dose, duration, or combination with radiation, said Demeestere.

Cryopreservation of sperm should always be performed before starting treatment. For high-risk patients who are prepubertal, samples of testicular tissue are taken.

In women, chemotherapy affects primordial follicles and follicle maturation through DNA damage. This process results in severe or temporary amenorrhea, a temporary or permanent decrease in egg reserve, and ultimately premature egg insufficiency.

Novel immunotherapies also influence fertility, presumably through interactions of the immune system with the reproductive organs. But insufficient data are available, according to Lambertini, who emphasized that “these data are urgently needed, especially for young patients with cancer.”

In a mouse model, immune checkpoint inhibitors affected ovarian function, and the inflammatory reaction in humans can affect fertility. No long-term data are available for women yet, however, explained Demeestere. The effects of other therapeutics such as PARP, CDK4/6, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab, are only seen sporadically.

In the PENELOPE-B phase 3 study, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib did not affect ovarian function, even though the cyclin-dependent kinases play an important role in mitotic arrest, said Demeestere.
 

Adjusting the Regimen

In a PET-guided approach, Demeestere’s research team investigated the effects of dose reduction or adjustment of the treatment regimen of procarbazine and cyclophosphamide on the fertility of patients younger than 45 years with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.

By regularly controlling tumor growth with PET, the treatment could be adjusted so that the effect on egg reserve or spermatogenesis was significantly reduced and loss of fertility could be prevented.

During the 5-year follow-up period, the ovarian function of participating women was assessed by the serum concentration of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) to evaluate egg reserve. In men, testicular function was assessed at the beginning of the study. At the end of treatment, sperm analysis and FSH and testosterone levels were checked.

Demeestere and colleagues demonstrated that dose reduction or altering the treatment regimen for patients who responded early to treatment (determined by PET-guided monitoring) reduced the risk for gonadotoxicity from 46% to 14.5%. That is, the risk was reduced by more than half.

FSH and AMH correlated with the patient’s age and the dose of the alkylating agent. In men, sperm parameters recovered after dose or agent adjustment compared with the unchanged treatment regimen.

Newer results from the PHERGain study in women with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer also provided hope, according to Demeestere. Under PET-guided control, chemotherapy could be reduced.
 

More Data Needed

The new treatment options pose a challenge to preserving fertility during cancer treatment, said Demeestere.

For new targeted therapies, uniform recommendations cannot be issued because of the lack of data and varying treatment durations. Still, the new therapies are safer than chemotherapy.

The need to collect data on fertility and long-term effects in cancer survivors in clinical studies is also reflected in the literature, according to Demeestere. “There are more review articles on this topic than clinical studies.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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.

Thanks to the continuously improving treatment options for cancer, the number of cancer survivors is increasing, and a large proportion of survivors is confronted with the long-term effects of cancer treatment. Especially for young patients, the question of the impact of therapy on fertility arises.

Dose adjustment or modification of the treatment regimen can achieve a lot. But experts at the congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2024 noted that knowledge about newer treatment options like immunotherapies is still insufficient.
 

Therapy Selection

The question of preserving fertility must be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment, said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, medical oncology consultant at the University of Genoa in Genoa, Italy. A patient’s age, the type of therapy, and the dose are crucial in determining whether or how much fertility is affected. “Preserving fertility is also an aim of cancer therapy,” he said.

Lambertini, who is also a member of the ESMO Guideline Group on fertility preservation in cancer patients, referred to the 2020 ESMO guidelines, which list the gonadotoxicity of a substance depending on the treatment regimen and the patient’s age.

Isabelle Demeestere, MD, PhD, director of the research lab for human reproduction at the Erasmus Hospital of the Free University of Brussels in Brussels, Belgium, pointed out the limitations of general guidelines. “Therapies change over time, and a classification must be updated regularly.”

Knowledge gaps related to well-known therapies and many novel options persist. “For many FDA-approved medications, there are either no fertility data or only preclinical data available,” she added.
 

Chemotherapies and Immunotherapies

Chemotherapies with alkylating or platinum-containing substances are known for their effects on oocytes, follicle maturation, and spermatogenesis, said Demeestere.

Chemotherapy is gonadotoxic and leads to a temporary decrease in sperm quality or temporary azoospermia in men.

These effects, however, can lead to permanent azoospermia and endocrine disorders, depending on the dose, duration, or combination with radiation, said Demeestere.

Cryopreservation of sperm should always be performed before starting treatment. For high-risk patients who are prepubertal, samples of testicular tissue are taken.

In women, chemotherapy affects primordial follicles and follicle maturation through DNA damage. This process results in severe or temporary amenorrhea, a temporary or permanent decrease in egg reserve, and ultimately premature egg insufficiency.

Novel immunotherapies also influence fertility, presumably through interactions of the immune system with the reproductive organs. But insufficient data are available, according to Lambertini, who emphasized that “these data are urgently needed, especially for young patients with cancer.”

In a mouse model, immune checkpoint inhibitors affected ovarian function, and the inflammatory reaction in humans can affect fertility. No long-term data are available for women yet, however, explained Demeestere. The effects of other therapeutics such as PARP, CDK4/6, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab, are only seen sporadically.

In the PENELOPE-B phase 3 study, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib did not affect ovarian function, even though the cyclin-dependent kinases play an important role in mitotic arrest, said Demeestere.
 

Adjusting the Regimen

In a PET-guided approach, Demeestere’s research team investigated the effects of dose reduction or adjustment of the treatment regimen of procarbazine and cyclophosphamide on the fertility of patients younger than 45 years with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.

By regularly controlling tumor growth with PET, the treatment could be adjusted so that the effect on egg reserve or spermatogenesis was significantly reduced and loss of fertility could be prevented.

During the 5-year follow-up period, the ovarian function of participating women was assessed by the serum concentration of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) to evaluate egg reserve. In men, testicular function was assessed at the beginning of the study. At the end of treatment, sperm analysis and FSH and testosterone levels were checked.

Demeestere and colleagues demonstrated that dose reduction or altering the treatment regimen for patients who responded early to treatment (determined by PET-guided monitoring) reduced the risk for gonadotoxicity from 46% to 14.5%. That is, the risk was reduced by more than half.

FSH and AMH correlated with the patient’s age and the dose of the alkylating agent. In men, sperm parameters recovered after dose or agent adjustment compared with the unchanged treatment regimen.

Newer results from the PHERGain study in women with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer also provided hope, according to Demeestere. Under PET-guided control, chemotherapy could be reduced.
 

More Data Needed

The new treatment options pose a challenge to preserving fertility during cancer treatment, said Demeestere.

For new targeted therapies, uniform recommendations cannot be issued because of the lack of data and varying treatment durations. Still, the new therapies are safer than chemotherapy.

The need to collect data on fertility and long-term effects in cancer survivors in clinical studies is also reflected in the literature, according to Demeestere. “There are more review articles on this topic than clinical studies.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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.

Thanks to the continuously improving treatment options for cancer, the number of cancer survivors is increasing, and a large proportion of survivors is confronted with the long-term effects of cancer treatment. Especially for young patients, the question of the impact of therapy on fertility arises.

Dose adjustment or modification of the treatment regimen can achieve a lot. But experts at the congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2024 noted that knowledge about newer treatment options like immunotherapies is still insufficient.
 

Therapy Selection

The question of preserving fertility must be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment, said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, medical oncology consultant at the University of Genoa in Genoa, Italy. A patient’s age, the type of therapy, and the dose are crucial in determining whether or how much fertility is affected. “Preserving fertility is also an aim of cancer therapy,” he said.

Lambertini, who is also a member of the ESMO Guideline Group on fertility preservation in cancer patients, referred to the 2020 ESMO guidelines, which list the gonadotoxicity of a substance depending on the treatment regimen and the patient’s age.

Isabelle Demeestere, MD, PhD, director of the research lab for human reproduction at the Erasmus Hospital of the Free University of Brussels in Brussels, Belgium, pointed out the limitations of general guidelines. “Therapies change over time, and a classification must be updated regularly.”

Knowledge gaps related to well-known therapies and many novel options persist. “For many FDA-approved medications, there are either no fertility data or only preclinical data available,” she added.
 

Chemotherapies and Immunotherapies

Chemotherapies with alkylating or platinum-containing substances are known for their effects on oocytes, follicle maturation, and spermatogenesis, said Demeestere.

Chemotherapy is gonadotoxic and leads to a temporary decrease in sperm quality or temporary azoospermia in men.

These effects, however, can lead to permanent azoospermia and endocrine disorders, depending on the dose, duration, or combination with radiation, said Demeestere.

Cryopreservation of sperm should always be performed before starting treatment. For high-risk patients who are prepubertal, samples of testicular tissue are taken.

In women, chemotherapy affects primordial follicles and follicle maturation through DNA damage. This process results in severe or temporary amenorrhea, a temporary or permanent decrease in egg reserve, and ultimately premature egg insufficiency.

Novel immunotherapies also influence fertility, presumably through interactions of the immune system with the reproductive organs. But insufficient data are available, according to Lambertini, who emphasized that “these data are urgently needed, especially for young patients with cancer.”

In a mouse model, immune checkpoint inhibitors affected ovarian function, and the inflammatory reaction in humans can affect fertility. No long-term data are available for women yet, however, explained Demeestere. The effects of other therapeutics such as PARP, CDK4/6, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab, are only seen sporadically.

In the PENELOPE-B phase 3 study, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib did not affect ovarian function, even though the cyclin-dependent kinases play an important role in mitotic arrest, said Demeestere.
 

Adjusting the Regimen

In a PET-guided approach, Demeestere’s research team investigated the effects of dose reduction or adjustment of the treatment regimen of procarbazine and cyclophosphamide on the fertility of patients younger than 45 years with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.

By regularly controlling tumor growth with PET, the treatment could be adjusted so that the effect on egg reserve or spermatogenesis was significantly reduced and loss of fertility could be prevented.

During the 5-year follow-up period, the ovarian function of participating women was assessed by the serum concentration of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) to evaluate egg reserve. In men, testicular function was assessed at the beginning of the study. At the end of treatment, sperm analysis and FSH and testosterone levels were checked.

Demeestere and colleagues demonstrated that dose reduction or altering the treatment regimen for patients who responded early to treatment (determined by PET-guided monitoring) reduced the risk for gonadotoxicity from 46% to 14.5%. That is, the risk was reduced by more than half.

FSH and AMH correlated with the patient’s age and the dose of the alkylating agent. In men, sperm parameters recovered after dose or agent adjustment compared with the unchanged treatment regimen.

Newer results from the PHERGain study in women with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer also provided hope, according to Demeestere. Under PET-guided control, chemotherapy could be reduced.
 

More Data Needed

The new treatment options pose a challenge to preserving fertility during cancer treatment, said Demeestere.

For new targeted therapies, uniform recommendations cannot be issued because of the lack of data and varying treatment durations. Still, the new therapies are safer than chemotherapy.

The need to collect data on fertility and long-term effects in cancer survivors in clinical studies is also reflected in the literature, according to Demeestere. “There are more review articles on this topic than clinical studies.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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.

WASHINGTON — Combining short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with high-dose radiotherapy improves disease-free survival in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, compared with high-dose radiotherapy alone, according to results of the phase 3 GETUG 14 trial.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 84% in patients who received short-term ADT plus radiotherapy, compared with 76% in those who received radiotherapy alone.

In addition, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy didn’t increase genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicities, said Nicolas Demogeot, MD, with the Cancer Institute of Lorraine, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

Adding short-term ADT to standard-dose radiotherapy has been shown to improve all clinical outcomes, Dr. Demogeot noted, but few trials have tested it with high-dose radiotherapy. GETUG 14 was designed to do just that.

The multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial enrolled 376 patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer who had PSA levels under 30 ng/mL and no clinical involvement of the seminal vesicles.

Patients were randomly allocated to high-dose radiotherapy (80 Gy) alone or high-dose radiotherapy plus monthly triptorelin and daily flutamide for a total duration of 4 months, starting 2 months prior to radiotherapy.

Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, biochemical failure, metastasis failure, toxicity, and quality of life.

The modified intention-to-treat cohort included 191 patients in the radiotherapy-only group and 179 in the short-term ADT plus radiotherapy group. The two groups were well balanced. In both, patients ranged in age from 64 to 73 years; about two thirds had intermediate-risk disease; 70% received three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and 30% received intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Overall, adding short-term ADT to high-dose radiotherapy was associated with a 36% relative improvement in 5-year disease-free survival (84% vs 76% with radiotherapy alone, hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .02).

In subgroup analyses, intermediate-risk patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy demonstrated a significant improvement in disease-free survival (87% vs 74% with radiotherapy alone; HR, 0.55; P = .02). However, there was no significant disease-free survival benefit with short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy in high-risk patients (79% vs 75%; HR, 0.76; P = .40).

On multivariable analysis, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy was associated with significant disease-free survival benefits (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

Patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy were significantly less likely to experience biochemical failure (10% vs 21%; HR, 0.45; P = .001), but there was no significant difference in metastasis failure (HR, 0.5; P = .09) or overall survival (HR, 1.22; P = .54).

As for adverse events, the two groups did not demonstrate significant differences in the proportions of early or late grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities.

Patients in the short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy group did experience a greater frequency of early grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (31% vs 6%; P < .001), but not late grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (63% vs 61%; P = .89).

Limitations of the study include a low power to detect differences between intermediate- and high-risk patients and the short follow-up period.

The GETUG 14 trial “confirms that short-term ADT improves disease-free survival when combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” Mark A. Hallman, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “However, there was not a similar benefit among the smaller subpopulation with high-risk disease.”

Outside expert Amar Kishan, MD, radiation oncologist, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, agreed, adding that “it is also reassuring to see no increase in genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity and no longer-term impact on erectile dysfunction.”

The GETUG-14 trial was supported by the French Ministry of Health and Ipsen. Dr. Demogeot has disclosed relationships with Ipsen, Janssen, Accord Healthcare, Astellas, and Bayer. Dr. Hallman had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kishan has disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, ViewRay, and POINT Biopharma.

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

WASHINGTON — Combining short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with high-dose radiotherapy improves disease-free survival in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, compared with high-dose radiotherapy alone, according to results of the phase 3 GETUG 14 trial.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 84% in patients who received short-term ADT plus radiotherapy, compared with 76% in those who received radiotherapy alone.

In addition, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy didn’t increase genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicities, said Nicolas Demogeot, MD, with the Cancer Institute of Lorraine, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

Adding short-term ADT to standard-dose radiotherapy has been shown to improve all clinical outcomes, Dr. Demogeot noted, but few trials have tested it with high-dose radiotherapy. GETUG 14 was designed to do just that.

The multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial enrolled 376 patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer who had PSA levels under 30 ng/mL and no clinical involvement of the seminal vesicles.

Patients were randomly allocated to high-dose radiotherapy (80 Gy) alone or high-dose radiotherapy plus monthly triptorelin and daily flutamide for a total duration of 4 months, starting 2 months prior to radiotherapy.

Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, biochemical failure, metastasis failure, toxicity, and quality of life.

The modified intention-to-treat cohort included 191 patients in the radiotherapy-only group and 179 in the short-term ADT plus radiotherapy group. The two groups were well balanced. In both, patients ranged in age from 64 to 73 years; about two thirds had intermediate-risk disease; 70% received three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and 30% received intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Overall, adding short-term ADT to high-dose radiotherapy was associated with a 36% relative improvement in 5-year disease-free survival (84% vs 76% with radiotherapy alone, hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .02).

In subgroup analyses, intermediate-risk patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy demonstrated a significant improvement in disease-free survival (87% vs 74% with radiotherapy alone; HR, 0.55; P = .02). However, there was no significant disease-free survival benefit with short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy in high-risk patients (79% vs 75%; HR, 0.76; P = .40).

On multivariable analysis, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy was associated with significant disease-free survival benefits (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

Patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy were significantly less likely to experience biochemical failure (10% vs 21%; HR, 0.45; P = .001), but there was no significant difference in metastasis failure (HR, 0.5; P = .09) or overall survival (HR, 1.22; P = .54).

As for adverse events, the two groups did not demonstrate significant differences in the proportions of early or late grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities.

Patients in the short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy group did experience a greater frequency of early grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (31% vs 6%; P < .001), but not late grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (63% vs 61%; P = .89).

Limitations of the study include a low power to detect differences between intermediate- and high-risk patients and the short follow-up period.

The GETUG 14 trial “confirms that short-term ADT improves disease-free survival when combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” Mark A. Hallman, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “However, there was not a similar benefit among the smaller subpopulation with high-risk disease.”

Outside expert Amar Kishan, MD, radiation oncologist, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, agreed, adding that “it is also reassuring to see no increase in genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity and no longer-term impact on erectile dysfunction.”

The GETUG-14 trial was supported by the French Ministry of Health and Ipsen. Dr. Demogeot has disclosed relationships with Ipsen, Janssen, Accord Healthcare, Astellas, and Bayer. Dr. Hallman had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kishan has disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, ViewRay, and POINT Biopharma.

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

WASHINGTON — Combining short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with high-dose radiotherapy improves disease-free survival in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, compared with high-dose radiotherapy alone, according to results of the phase 3 GETUG 14 trial.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 84% in patients who received short-term ADT plus radiotherapy, compared with 76% in those who received radiotherapy alone.

In addition, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy didn’t increase genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicities, said Nicolas Demogeot, MD, with the Cancer Institute of Lorraine, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

Adding short-term ADT to standard-dose radiotherapy has been shown to improve all clinical outcomes, Dr. Demogeot noted, but few trials have tested it with high-dose radiotherapy. GETUG 14 was designed to do just that.

The multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial enrolled 376 patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer who had PSA levels under 30 ng/mL and no clinical involvement of the seminal vesicles.

Patients were randomly allocated to high-dose radiotherapy (80 Gy) alone or high-dose radiotherapy plus monthly triptorelin and daily flutamide for a total duration of 4 months, starting 2 months prior to radiotherapy.

Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, biochemical failure, metastasis failure, toxicity, and quality of life.

The modified intention-to-treat cohort included 191 patients in the radiotherapy-only group and 179 in the short-term ADT plus radiotherapy group. The two groups were well balanced. In both, patients ranged in age from 64 to 73 years; about two thirds had intermediate-risk disease; 70% received three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and 30% received intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Overall, adding short-term ADT to high-dose radiotherapy was associated with a 36% relative improvement in 5-year disease-free survival (84% vs 76% with radiotherapy alone, hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .02).

In subgroup analyses, intermediate-risk patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy demonstrated a significant improvement in disease-free survival (87% vs 74% with radiotherapy alone; HR, 0.55; P = .02). However, there was no significant disease-free survival benefit with short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy in high-risk patients (79% vs 75%; HR, 0.76; P = .40).

On multivariable analysis, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy was associated with significant disease-free survival benefits (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

Patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy were significantly less likely to experience biochemical failure (10% vs 21%; HR, 0.45; P = .001), but there was no significant difference in metastasis failure (HR, 0.5; P = .09) or overall survival (HR, 1.22; P = .54).

As for adverse events, the two groups did not demonstrate significant differences in the proportions of early or late grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities.

Patients in the short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy group did experience a greater frequency of early grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (31% vs 6%; P < .001), but not late grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (63% vs 61%; P = .89).

Limitations of the study include a low power to detect differences between intermediate- and high-risk patients and the short follow-up period.

The GETUG 14 trial “confirms that short-term ADT improves disease-free survival when combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” Mark A. Hallman, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “However, there was not a similar benefit among the smaller subpopulation with high-risk disease.”

Outside expert Amar Kishan, MD, radiation oncologist, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, agreed, adding that “it is also reassuring to see no increase in genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity and no longer-term impact on erectile dysfunction.”

The GETUG-14 trial was supported by the French Ministry of Health and Ipsen. Dr. Demogeot has disclosed relationships with Ipsen, Janssen, Accord Healthcare, Astellas, and Bayer. Dr. Hallman had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kishan has disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, ViewRay, and POINT Biopharma.

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

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care for about 10,000 transgender women, and clinicians must understand their distinctive needs for prostate cancer screening, a urologist told cancer specialists during a presentation at the 2024 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology in Atlanta.

Even if they’ve undergone gender reassignment surgery, “all transgender women still have a prostate, so therefore they remain at risk of prostate cancer and could still be considered for prostate cancer screening,” said Farnoosh Nik-Ahd, MD, a resident physician at the University of California San Francisco. However, “clinicians and patients may not be aware of prostate cancer risk, so that they may not think [of screening] transgender women.”

Nik-Ahd also noted another complication: The results of prostate screening tests may be misleading in this population.

Transgender women were born biologically male but now identify as female. These individuals may have undergone gender reassignment surgery to remove male genitalia, but the procedures do not remove the prostate. They also might be taking estrogen therapy. “Prostate cancer is a hormonally driven cancer, and the exact impact of gender-affirming hormones on prostate cancer risk and development is unknown,” Nik-Ahd said.

In a 2023 study in JAMA, Nik-Ahd and colleagues identified 155 cases of prostate cancer in transgender women within the VHA (about 14 cases per year) from 2000 to 2022. Of these patients, 116 had never used estrogen, while 17 had used it previously and 22 used it at diagnosis.

The median age of patients was 61 years, 88% identified as White, and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.8 ng/mL. “Given estimates of 10,000 transgender women in the US Department of Veterans Affairs, 33 cases per year would be expected. Instead, only about 14 per year were observed,” the researchers wrote. “Lower rates may stem from less PSA screening owing to barriers including lack of prostate cancer risk awareness or stigma, the suppressive effects of estrogen on prostate cancer development, or prostate cancers being missed in transgender women because of misinterpretation of ‘normal’ PSA levels among those receiving gender-affirming hormone therapies.”

In the presentation, Nik-Ahd said, “PSA density, which is a marker of prostate cancer aggressiveness, was highest in transgender women who were actively on estrogen.”

She noted, “the existing thyrotropin reference ranges, which is what we use to interpret PSA values, are all based on data from cisgender men.” The ranges would be expected to be far lower in transgender women who are taking estrogen, potentially throwing off screening tests, she said, and “ultimately missing clinically significant prostate cancer.”

In the larger picture, there are no specific guidelines about PSA screening in transgender women, she said. 

A recent study published in JAMA by Nik-Ahd and colleagues examined PSA levels in 210 transgender women (mean age 60 years) treated within the VHA from 2000 to 2023. All were aged 40 to 80 years, had received estrogen for at least 6 months (mean duration 4.7 years), and didn’t have prostate cancer diagnoses.

“Median (IQR) PSA was 0.02 (0-0.2) ng/mL and the 95th percentile value was 0.6 ng/mL,” the report found. “PSAs were undetectable in 36% of patients (23% and 49% of PSAs in patients without and with orchiectomy, respectively).”

The researchers write that “the historic cut point of 4 ng/mL, often used as a threshold for further evaluation, is likely far too high a threshold for this population.”

Nik-Ahd noted, “clinicians should interpret PSA values in transgender women on estrogen with extreme caution. In this population, normal might actually not be normal, and a value that is considered normal might be very abnormal for somebody who is on estrogen. If you're unsure of whether a PSA value is appropriate for a transgender woman on estrogen, refer that patient to a urologist so they can undergo further evaluation.”

Farnoosh Nik-Ahd discloses consulting for Janssen.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care for about 10,000 transgender women, and clinicians must understand their distinctive needs for prostate cancer screening, a urologist told cancer specialists during a presentation at the 2024 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology in Atlanta.

Even if they’ve undergone gender reassignment surgery, “all transgender women still have a prostate, so therefore they remain at risk of prostate cancer and could still be considered for prostate cancer screening,” said Farnoosh Nik-Ahd, MD, a resident physician at the University of California San Francisco. However, “clinicians and patients may not be aware of prostate cancer risk, so that they may not think [of screening] transgender women.”

Nik-Ahd also noted another complication: The results of prostate screening tests may be misleading in this population.

Transgender women were born biologically male but now identify as female. These individuals may have undergone gender reassignment surgery to remove male genitalia, but the procedures do not remove the prostate. They also might be taking estrogen therapy. “Prostate cancer is a hormonally driven cancer, and the exact impact of gender-affirming hormones on prostate cancer risk and development is unknown,” Nik-Ahd said.

In a 2023 study in JAMA, Nik-Ahd and colleagues identified 155 cases of prostate cancer in transgender women within the VHA (about 14 cases per year) from 2000 to 2022. Of these patients, 116 had never used estrogen, while 17 had used it previously and 22 used it at diagnosis.

The median age of patients was 61 years, 88% identified as White, and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.8 ng/mL. “Given estimates of 10,000 transgender women in the US Department of Veterans Affairs, 33 cases per year would be expected. Instead, only about 14 per year were observed,” the researchers wrote. “Lower rates may stem from less PSA screening owing to barriers including lack of prostate cancer risk awareness or stigma, the suppressive effects of estrogen on prostate cancer development, or prostate cancers being missed in transgender women because of misinterpretation of ‘normal’ PSA levels among those receiving gender-affirming hormone therapies.”

In the presentation, Nik-Ahd said, “PSA density, which is a marker of prostate cancer aggressiveness, was highest in transgender women who were actively on estrogen.”

She noted, “the existing thyrotropin reference ranges, which is what we use to interpret PSA values, are all based on data from cisgender men.” The ranges would be expected to be far lower in transgender women who are taking estrogen, potentially throwing off screening tests, she said, and “ultimately missing clinically significant prostate cancer.”

In the larger picture, there are no specific guidelines about PSA screening in transgender women, she said. 

A recent study published in JAMA by Nik-Ahd and colleagues examined PSA levels in 210 transgender women (mean age 60 years) treated within the VHA from 2000 to 2023. All were aged 40 to 80 years, had received estrogen for at least 6 months (mean duration 4.7 years), and didn’t have prostate cancer diagnoses.

“Median (IQR) PSA was 0.02 (0-0.2) ng/mL and the 95th percentile value was 0.6 ng/mL,” the report found. “PSAs were undetectable in 36% of patients (23% and 49% of PSAs in patients without and with orchiectomy, respectively).”

The researchers write that “the historic cut point of 4 ng/mL, often used as a threshold for further evaluation, is likely far too high a threshold for this population.”

Nik-Ahd noted, “clinicians should interpret PSA values in transgender women on estrogen with extreme caution. In this population, normal might actually not be normal, and a value that is considered normal might be very abnormal for somebody who is on estrogen. If you're unsure of whether a PSA value is appropriate for a transgender woman on estrogen, refer that patient to a urologist so they can undergo further evaluation.”

Farnoosh Nik-Ahd discloses consulting for Janssen.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care for about 10,000 transgender women, and clinicians must understand their distinctive needs for prostate cancer screening, a urologist told cancer specialists during a presentation at the 2024 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology in Atlanta.

Even if they’ve undergone gender reassignment surgery, “all transgender women still have a prostate, so therefore they remain at risk of prostate cancer and could still be considered for prostate cancer screening,” said Farnoosh Nik-Ahd, MD, a resident physician at the University of California San Francisco. However, “clinicians and patients may not be aware of prostate cancer risk, so that they may not think [of screening] transgender women.”

Nik-Ahd also noted another complication: The results of prostate screening tests may be misleading in this population.

Transgender women were born biologically male but now identify as female. These individuals may have undergone gender reassignment surgery to remove male genitalia, but the procedures do not remove the prostate. They also might be taking estrogen therapy. “Prostate cancer is a hormonally driven cancer, and the exact impact of gender-affirming hormones on prostate cancer risk and development is unknown,” Nik-Ahd said.

In a 2023 study in JAMA, Nik-Ahd and colleagues identified 155 cases of prostate cancer in transgender women within the VHA (about 14 cases per year) from 2000 to 2022. Of these patients, 116 had never used estrogen, while 17 had used it previously and 22 used it at diagnosis.

The median age of patients was 61 years, 88% identified as White, and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.8 ng/mL. “Given estimates of 10,000 transgender women in the US Department of Veterans Affairs, 33 cases per year would be expected. Instead, only about 14 per year were observed,” the researchers wrote. “Lower rates may stem from less PSA screening owing to barriers including lack of prostate cancer risk awareness or stigma, the suppressive effects of estrogen on prostate cancer development, or prostate cancers being missed in transgender women because of misinterpretation of ‘normal’ PSA levels among those receiving gender-affirming hormone therapies.”

In the presentation, Nik-Ahd said, “PSA density, which is a marker of prostate cancer aggressiveness, was highest in transgender women who were actively on estrogen.”

She noted, “the existing thyrotropin reference ranges, which is what we use to interpret PSA values, are all based on data from cisgender men.” The ranges would be expected to be far lower in transgender women who are taking estrogen, potentially throwing off screening tests, she said, and “ultimately missing clinically significant prostate cancer.”

In the larger picture, there are no specific guidelines about PSA screening in transgender women, she said. 

A recent study published in JAMA by Nik-Ahd and colleagues examined PSA levels in 210 transgender women (mean age 60 years) treated within the VHA from 2000 to 2023. All were aged 40 to 80 years, had received estrogen for at least 6 months (mean duration 4.7 years), and didn’t have prostate cancer diagnoses.

“Median (IQR) PSA was 0.02 (0-0.2) ng/mL and the 95th percentile value was 0.6 ng/mL,” the report found. “PSAs were undetectable in 36% of patients (23% and 49% of PSAs in patients without and with orchiectomy, respectively).”

The researchers write that “the historic cut point of 4 ng/mL, often used as a threshold for further evaluation, is likely far too high a threshold for this population.”

Nik-Ahd noted, “clinicians should interpret PSA values in transgender women on estrogen with extreme caution. In this population, normal might actually not be normal, and a value that is considered normal might be very abnormal for somebody who is on estrogen. If you're unsure of whether a PSA value is appropriate for a transgender woman on estrogen, refer that patient to a urologist so they can undergo further evaluation.”

Farnoosh Nik-Ahd discloses consulting for Janssen.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

This story was translated from JIM 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.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

This story was translated from JIM 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.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

This story was translated from JIM 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:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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