Lung Cancer

On day 1 of her fellowship, Francesca C. Duncan, MD, was blindsided by her first patient.

The patient, a White man who was accompanied by his wife, sat in the exam room with his sunglasses on.

“I remember him saying, ‘I need to take off my sunglasses so you don’t look so Black,’” said Dr. Duncan, a pulmonologist and intensivist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, who has a specialty in lung cancer disparities.

The patient proceeded to grill her about her experience and training. He asked where she attended college and mocked her degree from a historically Black university. His wife sat there, silent.

Dr. Duncan was shocked by the fact that she still had to defend her credentials.

“I just kind of felt like at that point in my training, my title would have earned me more respect,” said Dr. Duncan, now an assistant professor after recently completing a 3-year fellowship in pulmonary and critical care medicine. “I thought at some point [the racism and discrimination] would stop, but after all that training, all that late-night studying, I still had to prove myself.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Duncan’s experience in fellowship is not unique.

A recent survey of hematology and oncology fellows revealed that medical trainees routinely encounter discrimination during their training.

The 17 fellows who were anonymously interviewed in the survey all recalled experiencing or witnessing discriminatory behaviors during their fellowship, mostly from patients. These encounters rarely come to light. Only one respondent officially reported an incident.

The findings, published online November 8 in JAMA Network Open, underscore the need for graduate medical education programs to improve learning environments and support for trainees, lead author Rahma M. Warsame, MD, and colleagues say .
 

Discrimination at work

Initially, Dr. Warsame and co–principal investigator Katharine Price, MD, were tasked with developing strategies to mitigate instances of racism and bias that fellows encountered during training, but both felt it was critical to understand the experiences of their trainees first.

Out of 34 fellows and recent graduates of the hematology and oncology fellowship program of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., 20 consented to participate in the study. Of those, 17 were interviewed between July and November 2018. Among the 17 interviewees, six were Asian, two were Black, three were Hispanic, two were multiracial, and four were White.

Dr. Warsame and colleagues found that everyone reported experiencing or witnessing biased or discriminatory events. The majority of these offenses were committed by patients, not faculty or other employees. The researchers largely interpreted most of the incidents as microaggressions.

From the interviews, the researchers identified six central themes. Among them: foreign fellows and U.S.-born trainees being perceived or made to feel like outsiders; inappropriate comments being made toward female employees about their looks, credentials, or marital status; lack of action after reporting incidents or concerns that reporting such incidents would be futile; and strategies fellows used to cope after negative interactions.

One interviewee said, “I was fired by a patient because I have an accent.” Another said that when she is interviewing for jobs, she is always asked if she has children: “Maybe they’re asking in an innocuous manner, but I always feel like people worry. Is this person going to take maternity leave and be less available for work?”

For Dr. Warsame, “the idea that American citizens were frequently made to feel like they do not belong was surprising.”

Not surprising to Dr. Warsame, however, was the importance of fostering diversity and inclusion during fellowship years. Fellows often noted that greater diversity within the program helped create a more inclusive environment.

“[What’s] important to reinforce is the value of creating platforms for honest discussion and intentionally seeking fellows’ voices and perspectives, which in turn makes them feel like they belong,” Dr. Warsame said.

Still, the researchers found that fellows often did not report incidents of discrimination or bias. Only six trainees were aware of policies for reporting patient misconduct or discrimination, and only one ever reported an incident.
 

Where’s the support?

For Dr. Duncan, her encounter 3 years ago with the patient with sunglasses wasn’t her first experience of discrimination on the job — or her last.

Although hurtful in the moment, she had the wherewithal to report the incident to her attending physician, who was equally shocked. Initially unsure of how to handle it, the attending ultimately stepped up and provided “immense support,” Dr. Duncan said

The issue was brought to the attention of the program director, who took swift action. The patient was documented as “disruptive,” informed of that status in writing, and was banned from receiving treatment from trainees at the center, although Dr. Duncan noted he still received the medical care he needed.

Often, however, fellows who report incidents of discrimination and racism receive little support. According to Dr. Warsame and colleagues, most trainees don’t bother reporting these experiences because they believe that doing so would be futile.

“Concerns about reporting included jeopardizing future employability, risk of retaliation, and challenges reporting experiences that could be perceived as subjective and difficult to prove,” the authors write.

For instance, one interviewee said: “I’m afraid to report these things because there’s gonna be repercussions. There’s no way it’s gonna be anonymous.... I just have to toughen up and, you know, get used [to it].”

Dr. Warsame added, “A major challenge for trainees was that they often felt unheard, and at the time, there was no formal debrief regarding discrimination issues when they arose.”

These instances of bias have implications for trainee well-being. In a 2019 study, discrimination that physicians and students experienced during training had adverse effects on their emotional health. Responses from 50 trainees and physicians revealed a wide range of discriminatory experiences, including patients rejecting care and spewing racist, sexist, or homophobic epithets. Many physicians were uncertain about how to respond effectively and appropriately.

Since that study was published and after having completed her own fellowship, Dr. Duncan said she has seen some change for the better.

“There is a lot more awareness around this, and programs are trying to do better in recognizing and responding to incidents,” she said. She noted that it’s important to ensure that those who are directly affected by discriminatory behaviors aren’t left to do all of the “heavy lifting” of addressing and resolving the issues.

The weight of discriminatory incidents, from microaggressions to overt racism, is cumulative and can adversely affect a person’s career. “It’s exhausting -- we need support,” she said.

The Mayo Clinic is working to ensure that trainees receive support. “The study has prompted communication workshops and faculty development to better equip trainees with strategies to address [and report] patients who behave or display disrespectful or discriminatory behavior,” Dr. Warsame said.

She and her colleagues noted that the anonymous hotline used for the survey cultivated a safe environment for candid discussions and that such an approach is “feasible and effective to explore sensitive topics and scalable to various geographic locations and different medical specialties.”

“We recognize that our program must seek this feedback regularly and ensure we keep a finger on the pulse of our trainees,” Dr. Warsame added.

Dr. Warsame and Dr. Duncan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Duncan noted that her views and comments are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her institution.

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

On day 1 of her fellowship, Francesca C. Duncan, MD, was blindsided by her first patient.

The patient, a White man who was accompanied by his wife, sat in the exam room with his sunglasses on.

“I remember him saying, ‘I need to take off my sunglasses so you don’t look so Black,’” said Dr. Duncan, a pulmonologist and intensivist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, who has a specialty in lung cancer disparities.

The patient proceeded to grill her about her experience and training. He asked where she attended college and mocked her degree from a historically Black university. His wife sat there, silent.

Dr. Duncan was shocked by the fact that she still had to defend her credentials.

“I just kind of felt like at that point in my training, my title would have earned me more respect,” said Dr. Duncan, now an assistant professor after recently completing a 3-year fellowship in pulmonary and critical care medicine. “I thought at some point [the racism and discrimination] would stop, but after all that training, all that late-night studying, I still had to prove myself.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Duncan’s experience in fellowship is not unique.

A recent survey of hematology and oncology fellows revealed that medical trainees routinely encounter discrimination during their training.

The 17 fellows who were anonymously interviewed in the survey all recalled experiencing or witnessing discriminatory behaviors during their fellowship, mostly from patients. These encounters rarely come to light. Only one respondent officially reported an incident.

The findings, published online November 8 in JAMA Network Open, underscore the need for graduate medical education programs to improve learning environments and support for trainees, lead author Rahma M. Warsame, MD, and colleagues say .
 

Discrimination at work

Initially, Dr. Warsame and co–principal investigator Katharine Price, MD, were tasked with developing strategies to mitigate instances of racism and bias that fellows encountered during training, but both felt it was critical to understand the experiences of their trainees first.

Out of 34 fellows and recent graduates of the hematology and oncology fellowship program of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., 20 consented to participate in the study. Of those, 17 were interviewed between July and November 2018. Among the 17 interviewees, six were Asian, two were Black, three were Hispanic, two were multiracial, and four were White.

Dr. Warsame and colleagues found that everyone reported experiencing or witnessing biased or discriminatory events. The majority of these offenses were committed by patients, not faculty or other employees. The researchers largely interpreted most of the incidents as microaggressions.

From the interviews, the researchers identified six central themes. Among them: foreign fellows and U.S.-born trainees being perceived or made to feel like outsiders; inappropriate comments being made toward female employees about their looks, credentials, or marital status; lack of action after reporting incidents or concerns that reporting such incidents would be futile; and strategies fellows used to cope after negative interactions.

One interviewee said, “I was fired by a patient because I have an accent.” Another said that when she is interviewing for jobs, she is always asked if she has children: “Maybe they’re asking in an innocuous manner, but I always feel like people worry. Is this person going to take maternity leave and be less available for work?”

For Dr. Warsame, “the idea that American citizens were frequently made to feel like they do not belong was surprising.”

Not surprising to Dr. Warsame, however, was the importance of fostering diversity and inclusion during fellowship years. Fellows often noted that greater diversity within the program helped create a more inclusive environment.

“[What’s] important to reinforce is the value of creating platforms for honest discussion and intentionally seeking fellows’ voices and perspectives, which in turn makes them feel like they belong,” Dr. Warsame said.

Still, the researchers found that fellows often did not report incidents of discrimination or bias. Only six trainees were aware of policies for reporting patient misconduct or discrimination, and only one ever reported an incident.
 

Where’s the support?

For Dr. Duncan, her encounter 3 years ago with the patient with sunglasses wasn’t her first experience of discrimination on the job — or her last.

Although hurtful in the moment, she had the wherewithal to report the incident to her attending physician, who was equally shocked. Initially unsure of how to handle it, the attending ultimately stepped up and provided “immense support,” Dr. Duncan said

The issue was brought to the attention of the program director, who took swift action. The patient was documented as “disruptive,” informed of that status in writing, and was banned from receiving treatment from trainees at the center, although Dr. Duncan noted he still received the medical care he needed.

Often, however, fellows who report incidents of discrimination and racism receive little support. According to Dr. Warsame and colleagues, most trainees don’t bother reporting these experiences because they believe that doing so would be futile.

“Concerns about reporting included jeopardizing future employability, risk of retaliation, and challenges reporting experiences that could be perceived as subjective and difficult to prove,” the authors write.

For instance, one interviewee said: “I’m afraid to report these things because there’s gonna be repercussions. There’s no way it’s gonna be anonymous.... I just have to toughen up and, you know, get used [to it].”

Dr. Warsame added, “A major challenge for trainees was that they often felt unheard, and at the time, there was no formal debrief regarding discrimination issues when they arose.”

These instances of bias have implications for trainee well-being. In a 2019 study, discrimination that physicians and students experienced during training had adverse effects on their emotional health. Responses from 50 trainees and physicians revealed a wide range of discriminatory experiences, including patients rejecting care and spewing racist, sexist, or homophobic epithets. Many physicians were uncertain about how to respond effectively and appropriately.

Since that study was published and after having completed her own fellowship, Dr. Duncan said she has seen some change for the better.

“There is a lot more awareness around this, and programs are trying to do better in recognizing and responding to incidents,” she said. She noted that it’s important to ensure that those who are directly affected by discriminatory behaviors aren’t left to do all of the “heavy lifting” of addressing and resolving the issues.

The weight of discriminatory incidents, from microaggressions to overt racism, is cumulative and can adversely affect a person’s career. “It’s exhausting -- we need support,” she said.

The Mayo Clinic is working to ensure that trainees receive support. “The study has prompted communication workshops and faculty development to better equip trainees with strategies to address [and report] patients who behave or display disrespectful or discriminatory behavior,” Dr. Warsame said.

She and her colleagues noted that the anonymous hotline used for the survey cultivated a safe environment for candid discussions and that such an approach is “feasible and effective to explore sensitive topics and scalable to various geographic locations and different medical specialties.”

“We recognize that our program must seek this feedback regularly and ensure we keep a finger on the pulse of our trainees,” Dr. Warsame added.

Dr. Warsame and Dr. Duncan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Duncan noted that her views and comments are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her institution.

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

On day 1 of her fellowship, Francesca C. Duncan, MD, was blindsided by her first patient.

The patient, a White man who was accompanied by his wife, sat in the exam room with his sunglasses on.

“I remember him saying, ‘I need to take off my sunglasses so you don’t look so Black,’” said Dr. Duncan, a pulmonologist and intensivist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, who has a specialty in lung cancer disparities.

The patient proceeded to grill her about her experience and training. He asked where she attended college and mocked her degree from a historically Black university. His wife sat there, silent.

Dr. Duncan was shocked by the fact that she still had to defend her credentials.

“I just kind of felt like at that point in my training, my title would have earned me more respect,” said Dr. Duncan, now an assistant professor after recently completing a 3-year fellowship in pulmonary and critical care medicine. “I thought at some point [the racism and discrimination] would stop, but after all that training, all that late-night studying, I still had to prove myself.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Duncan’s experience in fellowship is not unique.

A recent survey of hematology and oncology fellows revealed that medical trainees routinely encounter discrimination during their training.

The 17 fellows who were anonymously interviewed in the survey all recalled experiencing or witnessing discriminatory behaviors during their fellowship, mostly from patients. These encounters rarely come to light. Only one respondent officially reported an incident.

The findings, published online November 8 in JAMA Network Open, underscore the need for graduate medical education programs to improve learning environments and support for trainees, lead author Rahma M. Warsame, MD, and colleagues say .
 

Discrimination at work

Initially, Dr. Warsame and co–principal investigator Katharine Price, MD, were tasked with developing strategies to mitigate instances of racism and bias that fellows encountered during training, but both felt it was critical to understand the experiences of their trainees first.

Out of 34 fellows and recent graduates of the hematology and oncology fellowship program of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., 20 consented to participate in the study. Of those, 17 were interviewed between July and November 2018. Among the 17 interviewees, six were Asian, two were Black, three were Hispanic, two were multiracial, and four were White.

Dr. Warsame and colleagues found that everyone reported experiencing or witnessing biased or discriminatory events. The majority of these offenses were committed by patients, not faculty or other employees. The researchers largely interpreted most of the incidents as microaggressions.

From the interviews, the researchers identified six central themes. Among them: foreign fellows and U.S.-born trainees being perceived or made to feel like outsiders; inappropriate comments being made toward female employees about their looks, credentials, or marital status; lack of action after reporting incidents or concerns that reporting such incidents would be futile; and strategies fellows used to cope after negative interactions.

One interviewee said, “I was fired by a patient because I have an accent.” Another said that when she is interviewing for jobs, she is always asked if she has children: “Maybe they’re asking in an innocuous manner, but I always feel like people worry. Is this person going to take maternity leave and be less available for work?”

For Dr. Warsame, “the idea that American citizens were frequently made to feel like they do not belong was surprising.”

Not surprising to Dr. Warsame, however, was the importance of fostering diversity and inclusion during fellowship years. Fellows often noted that greater diversity within the program helped create a more inclusive environment.

“[What’s] important to reinforce is the value of creating platforms for honest discussion and intentionally seeking fellows’ voices and perspectives, which in turn makes them feel like they belong,” Dr. Warsame said.

Still, the researchers found that fellows often did not report incidents of discrimination or bias. Only six trainees were aware of policies for reporting patient misconduct or discrimination, and only one ever reported an incident.
 

Where’s the support?

For Dr. Duncan, her encounter 3 years ago with the patient with sunglasses wasn’t her first experience of discrimination on the job — or her last.

Although hurtful in the moment, she had the wherewithal to report the incident to her attending physician, who was equally shocked. Initially unsure of how to handle it, the attending ultimately stepped up and provided “immense support,” Dr. Duncan said

The issue was brought to the attention of the program director, who took swift action. The patient was documented as “disruptive,” informed of that status in writing, and was banned from receiving treatment from trainees at the center, although Dr. Duncan noted he still received the medical care he needed.

Often, however, fellows who report incidents of discrimination and racism receive little support. According to Dr. Warsame and colleagues, most trainees don’t bother reporting these experiences because they believe that doing so would be futile.

“Concerns about reporting included jeopardizing future employability, risk of retaliation, and challenges reporting experiences that could be perceived as subjective and difficult to prove,” the authors write.

For instance, one interviewee said: “I’m afraid to report these things because there’s gonna be repercussions. There’s no way it’s gonna be anonymous.... I just have to toughen up and, you know, get used [to it].”

Dr. Warsame added, “A major challenge for trainees was that they often felt unheard, and at the time, there was no formal debrief regarding discrimination issues when they arose.”

These instances of bias have implications for trainee well-being. In a 2019 study, discrimination that physicians and students experienced during training had adverse effects on their emotional health. Responses from 50 trainees and physicians revealed a wide range of discriminatory experiences, including patients rejecting care and spewing racist, sexist, or homophobic epithets. Many physicians were uncertain about how to respond effectively and appropriately.

Since that study was published and after having completed her own fellowship, Dr. Duncan said she has seen some change for the better.

“There is a lot more awareness around this, and programs are trying to do better in recognizing and responding to incidents,” she said. She noted that it’s important to ensure that those who are directly affected by discriminatory behaviors aren’t left to do all of the “heavy lifting” of addressing and resolving the issues.

The weight of discriminatory incidents, from microaggressions to overt racism, is cumulative and can adversely affect a person’s career. “It’s exhausting -- we need support,” she said.

The Mayo Clinic is working to ensure that trainees receive support. “The study has prompted communication workshops and faculty development to better equip trainees with strategies to address [and report] patients who behave or display disrespectful or discriminatory behavior,” Dr. Warsame said.

She and her colleagues noted that the anonymous hotline used for the survey cultivated a safe environment for candid discussions and that such an approach is “feasible and effective to explore sensitive topics and scalable to various geographic locations and different medical specialties.”

“We recognize that our program must seek this feedback regularly and ensure we keep a finger on the pulse of our trainees,” Dr. Warsame added.

Dr. Warsame and Dr. Duncan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Duncan noted that her views and comments are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her institution.

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

Mortality from cancer has dropped substantially in the United States over the past 5 decades, according to a new analysis.

Researchers found that rates for all cancers combined declined by 27% overall between 1971 and 2019 and decreased significantly for 12 of the 15 top cancer sites analyzed.

The data revealed even greater mortality declines for certain cancers in particular years. For example, mortality from lung cancer was 44% lower in 2019, compared with its peak rate in 1993, whereas it was only 13% lower, compared with morality rates in 1971.

“The cancer mortality rate has reduced considerably since 1971 overall and for most cancer sites because of improvements in prevention, early detection, and treatment,” lead author Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, American Cancer Society, Kennesaw, Ga., and colleagues wrote.

Advances in surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision medicine, and combinations therapies over the past 5 decades have contributed to these significant declines in mortality, Dr. Jemal and colleagues explained. The researchers also credit the “expanded investment” in the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget following the 1971 National Cancer Act, which increased the budget 25-fold from $227 million in 1971 to $6 billion in 2019.

The report, published online Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Oncology, analyzed mortality rates for all cancers as well as the top 15 sites using the National Center for Health Statistics.

The researchers found that, overall, deaths declined significantly for all cancers over the study period. Some of the biggest headway since 1971 occurred for stomach and cervical cancers – with 72% and 69% lower mortality rates, respectively – as well as colorectal cancer (56%), oral cavity and pharynx cancer (43%), and ovarian cancer (41%). Mortality rates of female breast cancer and prostate cancer also dropped considerably – both by 39%.

“The decline in mortality for female breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer in part reflects increased detection (and removal) of premalignant lesions and early-stage cancers,” Dr. Jemal and colleagues noted.

Data suggest that screening likely explains about half of the observed decline in mortality from colorectal cancer between 1975 and 2002. A 2018 study also found that the use of adjuvant chemotherapy was responsible for 63% of the decline in mortality from female breast cancer between 2000 and 2012.

In addition, the authors noted, “the decline in lung, oral cavity and bladder cancers largely reflects reductions in smoking because of enhanced public awareness of the health consequences, implementation of increased cigarette excise taxes, and comprehensive smoke-free laws.”

However, mortality did increase in a few categories. For instance, the mortality rate from pancreatic cancer increased by 3% between 1971 and 2019, and by 8% for both esophageal and brain cancers. Mortality rates from cancer were also greater for 29% of the U.S. counties included in the analysis, mostly those in the South.

The increase in mortality from pancreatic cancer likely reflects the growing rates of obesity in the United States, along with no real advances in pancreatic cancer prevention, early detection, or treatment, the authors suggested. In addition, lack of progress in regions of the south may be related to unequal access to improvements in treatment compared with other parts of the country.

“Improving equity through investment in the social determinants of health and implementation research is critical to furthering the national cancer-control agenda,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mortality from cancer has dropped substantially in the United States over the past 5 decades, according to a new analysis.

Researchers found that rates for all cancers combined declined by 27% overall between 1971 and 2019 and decreased significantly for 12 of the 15 top cancer sites analyzed.

The data revealed even greater mortality declines for certain cancers in particular years. For example, mortality from lung cancer was 44% lower in 2019, compared with its peak rate in 1993, whereas it was only 13% lower, compared with morality rates in 1971.

“The cancer mortality rate has reduced considerably since 1971 overall and for most cancer sites because of improvements in prevention, early detection, and treatment,” lead author Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, American Cancer Society, Kennesaw, Ga., and colleagues wrote.

Advances in surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision medicine, and combinations therapies over the past 5 decades have contributed to these significant declines in mortality, Dr. Jemal and colleagues explained. The researchers also credit the “expanded investment” in the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget following the 1971 National Cancer Act, which increased the budget 25-fold from $227 million in 1971 to $6 billion in 2019.

The report, published online Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Oncology, analyzed mortality rates for all cancers as well as the top 15 sites using the National Center for Health Statistics.

The researchers found that, overall, deaths declined significantly for all cancers over the study period. Some of the biggest headway since 1971 occurred for stomach and cervical cancers – with 72% and 69% lower mortality rates, respectively – as well as colorectal cancer (56%), oral cavity and pharynx cancer (43%), and ovarian cancer (41%). Mortality rates of female breast cancer and prostate cancer also dropped considerably – both by 39%.

“The decline in mortality for female breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer in part reflects increased detection (and removal) of premalignant lesions and early-stage cancers,” Dr. Jemal and colleagues noted.

Data suggest that screening likely explains about half of the observed decline in mortality from colorectal cancer between 1975 and 2002. A 2018 study also found that the use of adjuvant chemotherapy was responsible for 63% of the decline in mortality from female breast cancer between 2000 and 2012.

In addition, the authors noted, “the decline in lung, oral cavity and bladder cancers largely reflects reductions in smoking because of enhanced public awareness of the health consequences, implementation of increased cigarette excise taxes, and comprehensive smoke-free laws.”

However, mortality did increase in a few categories. For instance, the mortality rate from pancreatic cancer increased by 3% between 1971 and 2019, and by 8% for both esophageal and brain cancers. Mortality rates from cancer were also greater for 29% of the U.S. counties included in the analysis, mostly those in the South.

The increase in mortality from pancreatic cancer likely reflects the growing rates of obesity in the United States, along with no real advances in pancreatic cancer prevention, early detection, or treatment, the authors suggested. In addition, lack of progress in regions of the south may be related to unequal access to improvements in treatment compared with other parts of the country.

“Improving equity through investment in the social determinants of health and implementation research is critical to furthering the national cancer-control agenda,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mortality from cancer has dropped substantially in the United States over the past 5 decades, according to a new analysis.

Researchers found that rates for all cancers combined declined by 27% overall between 1971 and 2019 and decreased significantly for 12 of the 15 top cancer sites analyzed.

The data revealed even greater mortality declines for certain cancers in particular years. For example, mortality from lung cancer was 44% lower in 2019, compared with its peak rate in 1993, whereas it was only 13% lower, compared with morality rates in 1971.

“The cancer mortality rate has reduced considerably since 1971 overall and for most cancer sites because of improvements in prevention, early detection, and treatment,” lead author Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, American Cancer Society, Kennesaw, Ga., and colleagues wrote.

Advances in surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision medicine, and combinations therapies over the past 5 decades have contributed to these significant declines in mortality, Dr. Jemal and colleagues explained. The researchers also credit the “expanded investment” in the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget following the 1971 National Cancer Act, which increased the budget 25-fold from $227 million in 1971 to $6 billion in 2019.

The report, published online Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Oncology, analyzed mortality rates for all cancers as well as the top 15 sites using the National Center for Health Statistics.

The researchers found that, overall, deaths declined significantly for all cancers over the study period. Some of the biggest headway since 1971 occurred for stomach and cervical cancers – with 72% and 69% lower mortality rates, respectively – as well as colorectal cancer (56%), oral cavity and pharynx cancer (43%), and ovarian cancer (41%). Mortality rates of female breast cancer and prostate cancer also dropped considerably – both by 39%.

“The decline in mortality for female breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer in part reflects increased detection (and removal) of premalignant lesions and early-stage cancers,” Dr. Jemal and colleagues noted.

Data suggest that screening likely explains about half of the observed decline in mortality from colorectal cancer between 1975 and 2002. A 2018 study also found that the use of adjuvant chemotherapy was responsible for 63% of the decline in mortality from female breast cancer between 2000 and 2012.

In addition, the authors noted, “the decline in lung, oral cavity and bladder cancers largely reflects reductions in smoking because of enhanced public awareness of the health consequences, implementation of increased cigarette excise taxes, and comprehensive smoke-free laws.”

However, mortality did increase in a few categories. For instance, the mortality rate from pancreatic cancer increased by 3% between 1971 and 2019, and by 8% for both esophageal and brain cancers. Mortality rates from cancer were also greater for 29% of the U.S. counties included in the analysis, mostly those in the South.

The increase in mortality from pancreatic cancer likely reflects the growing rates of obesity in the United States, along with no real advances in pancreatic cancer prevention, early detection, or treatment, the authors suggested. In addition, lack of progress in regions of the south may be related to unequal access to improvements in treatment compared with other parts of the country.

“Improving equity through investment in the social determinants of health and implementation research is critical to furthering the national cancer-control agenda,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

System-level changes to the way cancer care is delivered can help eliminate survival disparities between Black and White patients.

When barriers to completing radiation therapy were identified and addressed in a cohort of patients with early-stage lung and breast cancer, 5-year survival rates improved for all patients and closed the racial disparity gap, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

The findings come from the ACCURE clinical trial. This is the first prospective study designed to erase gaps in cancer treatment completion and survival among Black and White patient populations, explained lead author Matthew A. Manning, MD, a radiation oncologist and chief of oncology at Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C.

“Thousands of studies have looked at racial disparities in health care, but until recently, very few studies have implemented interventions to eliminate those disparities,” he said.

“This study shows that the implementation of ‘systems-change’ can eliminate racial disparities in cancer survival while improving survival for all,” he added.

“These results add to a growing body of evidence that health care disparities in cancer outcomes are eliminated or minimized by providing supportive, timely, and guideline-directed care,” said Lannis Hall, MD, MPH, director of radiation oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, and associate professor of radiation oncology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was approached for comment

“This research supports that access to care and timely treatment completion is critical to eliminating health care disparities,” she told this news organization. The system-based intervention in this trial was designed to reduce treatment delays and provide a supportive matrix for patients confronting real-world difficulties like transportation issues, childcare complications, and work absence, she explained.
 

Eliminating racial disparities

Previous findings from the ACCURE trial showed that it eliminated Black-White disparities in treatment completion rates, which was the study’s primary endpoint (Cancer Med. 2019;8:1095-1102). “It also improved treatment for all patients,” said Dr. Manning. “The current study is a follow-up on the survival of eligible patients treated during the ACCURE enrollment as compared to historical data.”

ACCURE was a multi-institutional trial designed to test a community-created intervention to reduce racial disparities. The intervention involved multiple changes to the way patients were supported while receiving cancer treatment and had four components: 

• an electronic health record with automatic alerts to flag missed appointments or unmet milestones in expected care 
• a nurse navigator trained in race-specific barriers to help patients overcome obstacles to care when alerts are flagged
• a physician champion to engage health care teams with race-related feedback on treatment completion
• regular health equity education training sessions for staff

The cohort was comprised of 1,413 patients with lung and breast cancer (stage 0-II) who were diagnosed from 2013-2015, and survival was compared to historical cases – 2,016 patients who had been treated from 2007-2011.

The results showed a significant improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with breast and lung cancer over time, and the racial gap in survival was reduced. 

The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer increased from 91% for White patients and 89% in Black patients in historical cases, to 94% for both during the study period.  

For patients with lung cancer, the 5-year survival rate improved from 43% in White patients and 37% in Black patients to 56% and 54%, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery had 5-year survival rates of 78.5% for White and 70.1% for Black patients, whereas for those who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) the rates were 41.9% and 50% respectively.

“We’ve shown it’s possible to eliminate disparities in cancer treatment completion and that this change has the potential to close cancer survival gaps downstream,” said Dr. Manning. “But we think the application can be much broader.” 

The ACCURE study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Manning and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

System-level changes to the way cancer care is delivered can help eliminate survival disparities between Black and White patients.

When barriers to completing radiation therapy were identified and addressed in a cohort of patients with early-stage lung and breast cancer, 5-year survival rates improved for all patients and closed the racial disparity gap, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

The findings come from the ACCURE clinical trial. This is the first prospective study designed to erase gaps in cancer treatment completion and survival among Black and White patient populations, explained lead author Matthew A. Manning, MD, a radiation oncologist and chief of oncology at Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C.

“Thousands of studies have looked at racial disparities in health care, but until recently, very few studies have implemented interventions to eliminate those disparities,” he said.

“This study shows that the implementation of ‘systems-change’ can eliminate racial disparities in cancer survival while improving survival for all,” he added.

“These results add to a growing body of evidence that health care disparities in cancer outcomes are eliminated or minimized by providing supportive, timely, and guideline-directed care,” said Lannis Hall, MD, MPH, director of radiation oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, and associate professor of radiation oncology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was approached for comment

“This research supports that access to care and timely treatment completion is critical to eliminating health care disparities,” she told this news organization. The system-based intervention in this trial was designed to reduce treatment delays and provide a supportive matrix for patients confronting real-world difficulties like transportation issues, childcare complications, and work absence, she explained.
 

Eliminating racial disparities

Previous findings from the ACCURE trial showed that it eliminated Black-White disparities in treatment completion rates, which was the study’s primary endpoint (Cancer Med. 2019;8:1095-1102). “It also improved treatment for all patients,” said Dr. Manning. “The current study is a follow-up on the survival of eligible patients treated during the ACCURE enrollment as compared to historical data.”

ACCURE was a multi-institutional trial designed to test a community-created intervention to reduce racial disparities. The intervention involved multiple changes to the way patients were supported while receiving cancer treatment and had four components: 

• an electronic health record with automatic alerts to flag missed appointments or unmet milestones in expected care 
• a nurse navigator trained in race-specific barriers to help patients overcome obstacles to care when alerts are flagged
• a physician champion to engage health care teams with race-related feedback on treatment completion
• regular health equity education training sessions for staff

The cohort was comprised of 1,413 patients with lung and breast cancer (stage 0-II) who were diagnosed from 2013-2015, and survival was compared to historical cases – 2,016 patients who had been treated from 2007-2011.

The results showed a significant improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with breast and lung cancer over time, and the racial gap in survival was reduced. 

The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer increased from 91% for White patients and 89% in Black patients in historical cases, to 94% for both during the study period.  

For patients with lung cancer, the 5-year survival rate improved from 43% in White patients and 37% in Black patients to 56% and 54%, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery had 5-year survival rates of 78.5% for White and 70.1% for Black patients, whereas for those who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) the rates were 41.9% and 50% respectively.

“We’ve shown it’s possible to eliminate disparities in cancer treatment completion and that this change has the potential to close cancer survival gaps downstream,” said Dr. Manning. “But we think the application can be much broader.” 

The ACCURE study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Manning and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

System-level changes to the way cancer care is delivered can help eliminate survival disparities between Black and White patients.

When barriers to completing radiation therapy were identified and addressed in a cohort of patients with early-stage lung and breast cancer, 5-year survival rates improved for all patients and closed the racial disparity gap, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

The findings come from the ACCURE clinical trial. This is the first prospective study designed to erase gaps in cancer treatment completion and survival among Black and White patient populations, explained lead author Matthew A. Manning, MD, a radiation oncologist and chief of oncology at Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C.

“Thousands of studies have looked at racial disparities in health care, but until recently, very few studies have implemented interventions to eliminate those disparities,” he said.

“This study shows that the implementation of ‘systems-change’ can eliminate racial disparities in cancer survival while improving survival for all,” he added.

“These results add to a growing body of evidence that health care disparities in cancer outcomes are eliminated or minimized by providing supportive, timely, and guideline-directed care,” said Lannis Hall, MD, MPH, director of radiation oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, and associate professor of radiation oncology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was approached for comment

“This research supports that access to care and timely treatment completion is critical to eliminating health care disparities,” she told this news organization. The system-based intervention in this trial was designed to reduce treatment delays and provide a supportive matrix for patients confronting real-world difficulties like transportation issues, childcare complications, and work absence, she explained.
 

Eliminating racial disparities

Previous findings from the ACCURE trial showed that it eliminated Black-White disparities in treatment completion rates, which was the study’s primary endpoint (Cancer Med. 2019;8:1095-1102). “It also improved treatment for all patients,” said Dr. Manning. “The current study is a follow-up on the survival of eligible patients treated during the ACCURE enrollment as compared to historical data.”

ACCURE was a multi-institutional trial designed to test a community-created intervention to reduce racial disparities. The intervention involved multiple changes to the way patients were supported while receiving cancer treatment and had four components: 

• an electronic health record with automatic alerts to flag missed appointments or unmet milestones in expected care 
• a nurse navigator trained in race-specific barriers to help patients overcome obstacles to care when alerts are flagged
• a physician champion to engage health care teams with race-related feedback on treatment completion
• regular health equity education training sessions for staff

The cohort was comprised of 1,413 patients with lung and breast cancer (stage 0-II) who were diagnosed from 2013-2015, and survival was compared to historical cases – 2,016 patients who had been treated from 2007-2011.

The results showed a significant improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with breast and lung cancer over time, and the racial gap in survival was reduced. 

The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer increased from 91% for White patients and 89% in Black patients in historical cases, to 94% for both during the study period.  

For patients with lung cancer, the 5-year survival rate improved from 43% in White patients and 37% in Black patients to 56% and 54%, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery had 5-year survival rates of 78.5% for White and 70.1% for Black patients, whereas for those who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) the rates were 41.9% and 50% respectively.

“We’ve shown it’s possible to eliminate disparities in cancer treatment completion and that this change has the potential to close cancer survival gaps downstream,” said Dr. Manning. “But we think the application can be much broader.” 

The ACCURE study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Manning and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed at progressive lesions in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was beneficial and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), suggest clinical trial results presented this week.

Patients treated with SBRT had a median PFS of 44 weeks, compared with 9 weeks for those who received standard care.

However, no benefit was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer. There was no significant difference in PFS between the two groups (18 weeks with SBRT vs. 19 weeks with standard care).

“In this preplanned interim analysis, we demonstrated the benefit of SBRT to sites of oligoprogression on overall progression-free survival, which was the primary endpoint,” said lead author C. Jillian Tsai, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and director of metastatic disease radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The difference was driven by the substantial response in [this] NSCLC cohort.”

There was no benefit of SBRT seen in the breast cohort, she noted, and most breast patients developed new lesions upon further progression.

Dr. Tsai and colleagues are planning to close the trial early, after the interim analysis established the benefit of SBRT. They are now investigating why SBRT was beneficial in NSCLC but not in breast cancer.

The findings were presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

Dr. Tsai explained that the current standard of care for patients with oligoprogressive metastatic NSCLC is to switch to a different targeted therapy or chemotherapy following progression, but options may be limited. Efficacy for second-line therapy can be poor, with PFS ranging from about 4 months to 10 months for NSCLC, “and after second line, efficacy for third and fourth lines is even poorer,” she said.

Similarly, for breast cancer, PFS ranges from about 9 months to 20 months for estrogen-receptor positive patients. “But for triple negative patients, there really is no standard of care and PFS is poor,” Dr. Tsai said.
 

SBRT superior to standard of care

The authors hypothesized that there is an oligoprogressive state in metastatic cancer, in which disease control can be improved by applying local therapy to progressive lesions only.

The cohort included 102 patients with metastatic NSCLC or breast cancer who had received one or more lines of systemic therapy and had oligoprogressive lesions amenable to SBRT. There was no upper limit of nonprogressive lesions.

Oligoprogression was defined as Response Evaluation or Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors documented progression ≤5 individual lesions.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT to all progressive sites plus palliative standard of care or systemic SOC only. Systemic therapy was per physician’s discretion.

There were 58 patients with NSCLC (30 in the SBRT group) and 44 patients with breast cancer (22 in each group).

Most patients (75%) had more than one site of oligoprogression and 47% had more than 5 total metastatic lesions. About half of patients (54%) had received immunotherapy and the majority of those with NSCLC (86%) did not harbor an actionable driver mutation. About one-third (32%) of the breast cancer cohort were triple negative.

Patients were followed for a median of 45 weeks (58 weeks for living patients), by which time 78 (74%) had experienced further tumor progression and 39 (37%) had died.

Median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 31 weeks for SBRT and 11 weeks for palliative SOC (P = .002).

In multivariable analysis that stratified for factors including age, sex, lines of systemic therapy, and change of systemic therapy, the progression-free survival benefit of SBRT continued to remain substantial in the NSCLC cohort (hazard ratio: 0.38; P = .007).

Adverse events were higher in the SBRT group. Grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 23 (61%) of SBRT patients, and 15 (40%) of SOC patients (P = .13).
 

Hoped-for results, with a few caveats

Approached for comment on the new findings, Clifford Robinson, MD, professor of radiation oncology, chief of SBRT service, and director of clinical trials and informatics at Washington University, St. Louis, said the results tie in with previous findings.

There are multiple published or presented prospective randomized phase 2 and 3 trials in various disease sites that have explored the role of local therapy, including SBRT, for patients who present with oligometastatic disease.

“These studies have nearly uniformly shown improvements in progression-free and/or overall survival with the inclusion of local therapy,” he told this news organization. Dr. Robinson was not involved with the study.

He explained that relatively few patients present with oligometastatic disease. However, many patients present with more advanced disease, but after an initial course of systemic therapy, develop oligoprogression.

“There is tremendous appeal to using local therapy at the time of oligoprogression in lieu of switching systemic therapy,” said Dr. Robinson. “It allows patients to stay on systemic therapy that is otherwise effective for the remainder of their disease.”

First-line systemic therapies are the most effective and the most tolerable, he continued, and switching systemic therapy introduces the potential for more toxicity and less efficacy. Therefore, it has become increasingly popular to offer SBRT to one or a few sites of oligoprogressive disease based on the results of oligometastatic disease.

“However, there is no established prospective data to guide this practice,” he said. “This trial is the first to examine this carefully in lung and breast cancer patients, and this trial shows what we hoped to see – that use of SBRT after oligoprogression results in improved progression-free survival as compared with standard of care alone. And this was accomplished with limited toxicity.”

There are a few caveats, though, he pointed out. “Progression-free survival is defined as time to first progression or death,” he said. “Since we don’t know what the overall survival is in this abstract, it’s entirely possible that patients live for the same length of time, but just take longer to progress.”

Another caveat is that this was a planned interim analysis. “Typically, planned interim analyses occur to see if the trial should be stopped or to adjust the study based on results,” he said. “It’s unclear what the investigators will do with this information.”

“But overall, these are very exciting data and lend support to the increasingly common practice of treating oligoprogressive disease,” Dr. Robinson added. “Since most of the serious adverse events of SBRT occur later, longer follow-up is needed, although the median survival of patients may not reach that timepoint.”

“For now, practice should not be altered based on these interim results,” he added.

Dr. Tsai reported acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian and Galera and also receiving research funding from Varian. Dr. Robinson reports stock/ownership in Radialogica, acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Quantitative Radiology Solutions, research funding from Varian and Merck, and owning patents on systems for cardiac arrhythmias and ablation.

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed at progressive lesions in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was beneficial and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), suggest clinical trial results presented this week.

Patients treated with SBRT had a median PFS of 44 weeks, compared with 9 weeks for those who received standard care.

However, no benefit was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer. There was no significant difference in PFS between the two groups (18 weeks with SBRT vs. 19 weeks with standard care).

“In this preplanned interim analysis, we demonstrated the benefit of SBRT to sites of oligoprogression on overall progression-free survival, which was the primary endpoint,” said lead author C. Jillian Tsai, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and director of metastatic disease radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The difference was driven by the substantial response in [this] NSCLC cohort.”

There was no benefit of SBRT seen in the breast cohort, she noted, and most breast patients developed new lesions upon further progression.

Dr. Tsai and colleagues are planning to close the trial early, after the interim analysis established the benefit of SBRT. They are now investigating why SBRT was beneficial in NSCLC but not in breast cancer.

The findings were presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

Dr. Tsai explained that the current standard of care for patients with oligoprogressive metastatic NSCLC is to switch to a different targeted therapy or chemotherapy following progression, but options may be limited. Efficacy for second-line therapy can be poor, with PFS ranging from about 4 months to 10 months for NSCLC, “and after second line, efficacy for third and fourth lines is even poorer,” she said.

Similarly, for breast cancer, PFS ranges from about 9 months to 20 months for estrogen-receptor positive patients. “But for triple negative patients, there really is no standard of care and PFS is poor,” Dr. Tsai said.
 

SBRT superior to standard of care

The authors hypothesized that there is an oligoprogressive state in metastatic cancer, in which disease control can be improved by applying local therapy to progressive lesions only.

The cohort included 102 patients with metastatic NSCLC or breast cancer who had received one or more lines of systemic therapy and had oligoprogressive lesions amenable to SBRT. There was no upper limit of nonprogressive lesions.

Oligoprogression was defined as Response Evaluation or Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors documented progression ≤5 individual lesions.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT to all progressive sites plus palliative standard of care or systemic SOC only. Systemic therapy was per physician’s discretion.

There were 58 patients with NSCLC (30 in the SBRT group) and 44 patients with breast cancer (22 in each group).

Most patients (75%) had more than one site of oligoprogression and 47% had more than 5 total metastatic lesions. About half of patients (54%) had received immunotherapy and the majority of those with NSCLC (86%) did not harbor an actionable driver mutation. About one-third (32%) of the breast cancer cohort were triple negative.

Patients were followed for a median of 45 weeks (58 weeks for living patients), by which time 78 (74%) had experienced further tumor progression and 39 (37%) had died.

Median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 31 weeks for SBRT and 11 weeks for palliative SOC (P = .002).

In multivariable analysis that stratified for factors including age, sex, lines of systemic therapy, and change of systemic therapy, the progression-free survival benefit of SBRT continued to remain substantial in the NSCLC cohort (hazard ratio: 0.38; P = .007).

Adverse events were higher in the SBRT group. Grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 23 (61%) of SBRT patients, and 15 (40%) of SOC patients (P = .13).
 

Hoped-for results, with a few caveats

Approached for comment on the new findings, Clifford Robinson, MD, professor of radiation oncology, chief of SBRT service, and director of clinical trials and informatics at Washington University, St. Louis, said the results tie in with previous findings.

There are multiple published or presented prospective randomized phase 2 and 3 trials in various disease sites that have explored the role of local therapy, including SBRT, for patients who present with oligometastatic disease.

“These studies have nearly uniformly shown improvements in progression-free and/or overall survival with the inclusion of local therapy,” he told this news organization. Dr. Robinson was not involved with the study.

He explained that relatively few patients present with oligometastatic disease. However, many patients present with more advanced disease, but after an initial course of systemic therapy, develop oligoprogression.

“There is tremendous appeal to using local therapy at the time of oligoprogression in lieu of switching systemic therapy,” said Dr. Robinson. “It allows patients to stay on systemic therapy that is otherwise effective for the remainder of their disease.”

First-line systemic therapies are the most effective and the most tolerable, he continued, and switching systemic therapy introduces the potential for more toxicity and less efficacy. Therefore, it has become increasingly popular to offer SBRT to one or a few sites of oligoprogressive disease based on the results of oligometastatic disease.

“However, there is no established prospective data to guide this practice,” he said. “This trial is the first to examine this carefully in lung and breast cancer patients, and this trial shows what we hoped to see – that use of SBRT after oligoprogression results in improved progression-free survival as compared with standard of care alone. And this was accomplished with limited toxicity.”

There are a few caveats, though, he pointed out. “Progression-free survival is defined as time to first progression or death,” he said. “Since we don’t know what the overall survival is in this abstract, it’s entirely possible that patients live for the same length of time, but just take longer to progress.”

Another caveat is that this was a planned interim analysis. “Typically, planned interim analyses occur to see if the trial should be stopped or to adjust the study based on results,” he said. “It’s unclear what the investigators will do with this information.”

“But overall, these are very exciting data and lend support to the increasingly common practice of treating oligoprogressive disease,” Dr. Robinson added. “Since most of the serious adverse events of SBRT occur later, longer follow-up is needed, although the median survival of patients may not reach that timepoint.”

“For now, practice should not be altered based on these interim results,” he added.

Dr. Tsai reported acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian and Galera and also receiving research funding from Varian. Dr. Robinson reports stock/ownership in Radialogica, acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Quantitative Radiology Solutions, research funding from Varian and Merck, and owning patents on systems for cardiac arrhythmias and ablation.

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed at progressive lesions in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was beneficial and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), suggest clinical trial results presented this week.

Patients treated with SBRT had a median PFS of 44 weeks, compared with 9 weeks for those who received standard care.

However, no benefit was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer. There was no significant difference in PFS between the two groups (18 weeks with SBRT vs. 19 weeks with standard care).

“In this preplanned interim analysis, we demonstrated the benefit of SBRT to sites of oligoprogression on overall progression-free survival, which was the primary endpoint,” said lead author C. Jillian Tsai, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and director of metastatic disease radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The difference was driven by the substantial response in [this] NSCLC cohort.”

There was no benefit of SBRT seen in the breast cohort, she noted, and most breast patients developed new lesions upon further progression.

Dr. Tsai and colleagues are planning to close the trial early, after the interim analysis established the benefit of SBRT. They are now investigating why SBRT was beneficial in NSCLC but not in breast cancer.

The findings were presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

Dr. Tsai explained that the current standard of care for patients with oligoprogressive metastatic NSCLC is to switch to a different targeted therapy or chemotherapy following progression, but options may be limited. Efficacy for second-line therapy can be poor, with PFS ranging from about 4 months to 10 months for NSCLC, “and after second line, efficacy for third and fourth lines is even poorer,” she said.

Similarly, for breast cancer, PFS ranges from about 9 months to 20 months for estrogen-receptor positive patients. “But for triple negative patients, there really is no standard of care and PFS is poor,” Dr. Tsai said.
 

SBRT superior to standard of care

The authors hypothesized that there is an oligoprogressive state in metastatic cancer, in which disease control can be improved by applying local therapy to progressive lesions only.

The cohort included 102 patients with metastatic NSCLC or breast cancer who had received one or more lines of systemic therapy and had oligoprogressive lesions amenable to SBRT. There was no upper limit of nonprogressive lesions.

Oligoprogression was defined as Response Evaluation or Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors documented progression ≤5 individual lesions.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT to all progressive sites plus palliative standard of care or systemic SOC only. Systemic therapy was per physician’s discretion.

There were 58 patients with NSCLC (30 in the SBRT group) and 44 patients with breast cancer (22 in each group).

Most patients (75%) had more than one site of oligoprogression and 47% had more than 5 total metastatic lesions. About half of patients (54%) had received immunotherapy and the majority of those with NSCLC (86%) did not harbor an actionable driver mutation. About one-third (32%) of the breast cancer cohort were triple negative.

Patients were followed for a median of 45 weeks (58 weeks for living patients), by which time 78 (74%) had experienced further tumor progression and 39 (37%) had died.

Median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 31 weeks for SBRT and 11 weeks for palliative SOC (P = .002).

In multivariable analysis that stratified for factors including age, sex, lines of systemic therapy, and change of systemic therapy, the progression-free survival benefit of SBRT continued to remain substantial in the NSCLC cohort (hazard ratio: 0.38; P = .007).

Adverse events were higher in the SBRT group. Grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 23 (61%) of SBRT patients, and 15 (40%) of SOC patients (P = .13).
 

Hoped-for results, with a few caveats

Approached for comment on the new findings, Clifford Robinson, MD, professor of radiation oncology, chief of SBRT service, and director of clinical trials and informatics at Washington University, St. Louis, said the results tie in with previous findings.

There are multiple published or presented prospective randomized phase 2 and 3 trials in various disease sites that have explored the role of local therapy, including SBRT, for patients who present with oligometastatic disease.

“These studies have nearly uniformly shown improvements in progression-free and/or overall survival with the inclusion of local therapy,” he told this news organization. Dr. Robinson was not involved with the study.

He explained that relatively few patients present with oligometastatic disease. However, many patients present with more advanced disease, but after an initial course of systemic therapy, develop oligoprogression.

“There is tremendous appeal to using local therapy at the time of oligoprogression in lieu of switching systemic therapy,” said Dr. Robinson. “It allows patients to stay on systemic therapy that is otherwise effective for the remainder of their disease.”

First-line systemic therapies are the most effective and the most tolerable, he continued, and switching systemic therapy introduces the potential for more toxicity and less efficacy. Therefore, it has become increasingly popular to offer SBRT to one or a few sites of oligoprogressive disease based on the results of oligometastatic disease.

“However, there is no established prospective data to guide this practice,” he said. “This trial is the first to examine this carefully in lung and breast cancer patients, and this trial shows what we hoped to see – that use of SBRT after oligoprogression results in improved progression-free survival as compared with standard of care alone. And this was accomplished with limited toxicity.”

There are a few caveats, though, he pointed out. “Progression-free survival is defined as time to first progression or death,” he said. “Since we don’t know what the overall survival is in this abstract, it’s entirely possible that patients live for the same length of time, but just take longer to progress.”

Another caveat is that this was a planned interim analysis. “Typically, planned interim analyses occur to see if the trial should be stopped or to adjust the study based on results,” he said. “It’s unclear what the investigators will do with this information.”

“But overall, these are very exciting data and lend support to the increasingly common practice of treating oligoprogressive disease,” Dr. Robinson added. “Since most of the serious adverse events of SBRT occur later, longer follow-up is needed, although the median survival of patients may not reach that timepoint.”

“For now, practice should not be altered based on these interim results,” he added.

Dr. Tsai reported acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian and Galera and also receiving research funding from Varian. Dr. Robinson reports stock/ownership in Radialogica, acting as a consultant/advisor for Varian, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Quantitative Radiology Solutions, research funding from Varian and Merck, and owning patents on systems for cardiac arrhythmias and ablation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening using urine samples based on the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) sensed by a trained dog is feasible, according to a preliminary study published in the journal Biology June 10.

“The extrapolation of our results to widespread implementation is still uncertain,” wrote Shoko Kure, MD, PhD, of Nippon Medical School in Tokyo, and colleagues. “However, even if few dogs could be trained to detect breast cancer, the result may open the door to a robust and inexpensive way to detect breast cancer.” They added that “dog cancer detection is entirely noninvasive, safe and easy for both patients and everyone.” 

Early detection of breast cancer, which is the leading cause of death globally, is essential for more efficient treatment. While mammography can detect asymptomatic breast cancer and reduce mortality, it has a poor compliance, is less sensitive in dense breast tissue, detects nonmalignant lesions, and has not been shown to reduce mortality in women younger than 40. VOCs are emitted in the breath, blood, and urine, with different volatile patterns correlated with a variety of diseases including cancers, which dogs can be trained to detect. Breast cancer screening by dog sniffing of the VOCs in urine samples has not been attempted.

Dogs have been used as medical detectives for several cancers and conditions. A study published in 2018 showed that trained dogs who were able to differentiate the specific odor from the metabolic waste of breast cancer in vitro could identify that of colorectal cancer, and vice versa. More recently, research showed that trained dogs could detect advanced prostate cancer in urine samples with high specificity and sensitivity. In this double-blinded pilot study, two dogs were trained to detect Gleason 9 prostate cancer in urine collected from biopsy-confirmed patients. The canine olfaction system was 71% sensitive and as much as 76% specific at detecting Gleason 9 cancer. Along with cancer, trained dogs have been shown to identify people with COVID-19, even those who were asymptomatic. In this study, dogs who sniffed swab samples of armpit sweat could identify which samples came from patients infected with COVID-19 with up to 100% accuracy, while ruling out infection with up to 99% accuracy.

The double-blind study by Dr. Kure aimed to assess the potential of VOCs in urine samples for breast cancer screening by using a single trained sniffer dog – in this case a 9-year-old female Labrador retriever. Urine samples from 40 patients with primary breast cancer and 142 patients with non-breast malignant diseases were included along with samples from 18 healthy volunteers. In 40 times out of 40 runs of the double-blind test, the dog correctly identified urine samples of patients with breast cancer, with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity.

“The dog in this test successfully differentiated breast cancer from non-breast malignancies and healthy controls,” the authors wrote. “This is the first, preliminary study indicating the feasibility of developing a new breast cancer screening method using urine samples based on VOCs.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as it relied on one trained dog, they suggested that this method has potential in low-income countries where access to mammography is inadequate.

“Some well-trained sniffing dogs traveling around medically underserved [countries] all over the world could save many lives. Even when a healthy control was indicated by a trained dog, there would be a suspicion of undiagnosed/early-stage cancer, and the person would be advised to undergo medical screening,” the authors wrote.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening using urine samples based on the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) sensed by a trained dog is feasible, according to a preliminary study published in the journal Biology June 10.

“The extrapolation of our results to widespread implementation is still uncertain,” wrote Shoko Kure, MD, PhD, of Nippon Medical School in Tokyo, and colleagues. “However, even if few dogs could be trained to detect breast cancer, the result may open the door to a robust and inexpensive way to detect breast cancer.” They added that “dog cancer detection is entirely noninvasive, safe and easy for both patients and everyone.” 

Early detection of breast cancer, which is the leading cause of death globally, is essential for more efficient treatment. While mammography can detect asymptomatic breast cancer and reduce mortality, it has a poor compliance, is less sensitive in dense breast tissue, detects nonmalignant lesions, and has not been shown to reduce mortality in women younger than 40. VOCs are emitted in the breath, blood, and urine, with different volatile patterns correlated with a variety of diseases including cancers, which dogs can be trained to detect. Breast cancer screening by dog sniffing of the VOCs in urine samples has not been attempted.

Dogs have been used as medical detectives for several cancers and conditions. A study published in 2018 showed that trained dogs who were able to differentiate the specific odor from the metabolic waste of breast cancer in vitro could identify that of colorectal cancer, and vice versa. More recently, research showed that trained dogs could detect advanced prostate cancer in urine samples with high specificity and sensitivity. In this double-blinded pilot study, two dogs were trained to detect Gleason 9 prostate cancer in urine collected from biopsy-confirmed patients. The canine olfaction system was 71% sensitive and as much as 76% specific at detecting Gleason 9 cancer. Along with cancer, trained dogs have been shown to identify people with COVID-19, even those who were asymptomatic. In this study, dogs who sniffed swab samples of armpit sweat could identify which samples came from patients infected with COVID-19 with up to 100% accuracy, while ruling out infection with up to 99% accuracy.

The double-blind study by Dr. Kure aimed to assess the potential of VOCs in urine samples for breast cancer screening by using a single trained sniffer dog – in this case a 9-year-old female Labrador retriever. Urine samples from 40 patients with primary breast cancer and 142 patients with non-breast malignant diseases were included along with samples from 18 healthy volunteers. In 40 times out of 40 runs of the double-blind test, the dog correctly identified urine samples of patients with breast cancer, with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity.

“The dog in this test successfully differentiated breast cancer from non-breast malignancies and healthy controls,” the authors wrote. “This is the first, preliminary study indicating the feasibility of developing a new breast cancer screening method using urine samples based on VOCs.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as it relied on one trained dog, they suggested that this method has potential in low-income countries where access to mammography is inadequate.

“Some well-trained sniffing dogs traveling around medically underserved [countries] all over the world could save many lives. Even when a healthy control was indicated by a trained dog, there would be a suspicion of undiagnosed/early-stage cancer, and the person would be advised to undergo medical screening,” the authors wrote.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening using urine samples based on the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) sensed by a trained dog is feasible, according to a preliminary study published in the journal Biology June 10.

“The extrapolation of our results to widespread implementation is still uncertain,” wrote Shoko Kure, MD, PhD, of Nippon Medical School in Tokyo, and colleagues. “However, even if few dogs could be trained to detect breast cancer, the result may open the door to a robust and inexpensive way to detect breast cancer.” They added that “dog cancer detection is entirely noninvasive, safe and easy for both patients and everyone.” 

Early detection of breast cancer, which is the leading cause of death globally, is essential for more efficient treatment. While mammography can detect asymptomatic breast cancer and reduce mortality, it has a poor compliance, is less sensitive in dense breast tissue, detects nonmalignant lesions, and has not been shown to reduce mortality in women younger than 40. VOCs are emitted in the breath, blood, and urine, with different volatile patterns correlated with a variety of diseases including cancers, which dogs can be trained to detect. Breast cancer screening by dog sniffing of the VOCs in urine samples has not been attempted.

Dogs have been used as medical detectives for several cancers and conditions. A study published in 2018 showed that trained dogs who were able to differentiate the specific odor from the metabolic waste of breast cancer in vitro could identify that of colorectal cancer, and vice versa. More recently, research showed that trained dogs could detect advanced prostate cancer in urine samples with high specificity and sensitivity. In this double-blinded pilot study, two dogs were trained to detect Gleason 9 prostate cancer in urine collected from biopsy-confirmed patients. The canine olfaction system was 71% sensitive and as much as 76% specific at detecting Gleason 9 cancer. Along with cancer, trained dogs have been shown to identify people with COVID-19, even those who were asymptomatic. In this study, dogs who sniffed swab samples of armpit sweat could identify which samples came from patients infected with COVID-19 with up to 100% accuracy, while ruling out infection with up to 99% accuracy.

The double-blind study by Dr. Kure aimed to assess the potential of VOCs in urine samples for breast cancer screening by using a single trained sniffer dog – in this case a 9-year-old female Labrador retriever. Urine samples from 40 patients with primary breast cancer and 142 patients with non-breast malignant diseases were included along with samples from 18 healthy volunteers. In 40 times out of 40 runs of the double-blind test, the dog correctly identified urine samples of patients with breast cancer, with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity.

“The dog in this test successfully differentiated breast cancer from non-breast malignancies and healthy controls,” the authors wrote. “This is the first, preliminary study indicating the feasibility of developing a new breast cancer screening method using urine samples based on VOCs.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as it relied on one trained dog, they suggested that this method has potential in low-income countries where access to mammography is inadequate.

“Some well-trained sniffing dogs traveling around medically underserved [countries] all over the world could save many lives. Even when a healthy control was indicated by a trained dog, there would be a suspicion of undiagnosed/early-stage cancer, and the person would be advised to undergo medical screening,” the authors wrote.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals is now the latest pharmaceutical company to offer a value-based agreement on one of its new targeted therapies.

The rebate offer is for brigatinib (Alunbrig) which is approved for the treatment of adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The move follows a rebate offer from Pfizer for crizotinib (Xalkori), which is also approved for ALK+ (as well as ROS1+) NSCLC, and also for ALK+ anaplastic large cell lymphoma

For its offer, Takeda has teamed up with Point32Health, the second-largest health plan in New England with about 2.3 million members. The new agreement will make brigatinib widely available to patients who may benefit from its use, say the companies.

If a patient is unable to remain on brigatinib for 3 months or longer because of effectiveness or tolerability, Takeda will refund a yet unspecified amount of money to Point32Health. Brigatinib’s list price is $17,000 for a month’s treatment.

“Given the importance of facilitating cutting-edge oncology treatment and also the reality that not all patients show a positive response, reimbursement for oncology treatments is an area that is prime for innovative financing approaches,” said Michael Sherman, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president, Point32Health, in a statement. “Collaborating with Takeda to share risk makes this agreement a crucial milestone in bringing cost-effectiveness to cancer care.”

The Pfizer program for crizotinib is somewhat different. For one thing, Pfizer’s refund is offered to any patient who qualifies and not just those who are covered by a specific plan. Second, Takeda is thus far only refunding money to the insurer, whereas Pfizer will also reimburse patients for out-of-pocket expenses.

There is a similar approach that has been offered by Novartis for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), the CAR T-cell therapy that launched with a daunting price tag of $475,000. After receiving backlash over the cost, Novartis announced that if the drug does not work after the first month, patients pay nothing.

In addition, Italy has been using this system for several years. Pharmaceutical companies must refund money if the drug fails to work. In 2015, the state-run health care system collected 200 million euros ($220 million) in refunds.

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

Takeda Pharmaceuticals is now the latest pharmaceutical company to offer a value-based agreement on one of its new targeted therapies.

The rebate offer is for brigatinib (Alunbrig) which is approved for the treatment of adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The move follows a rebate offer from Pfizer for crizotinib (Xalkori), which is also approved for ALK+ (as well as ROS1+) NSCLC, and also for ALK+ anaplastic large cell lymphoma

For its offer, Takeda has teamed up with Point32Health, the second-largest health plan in New England with about 2.3 million members. The new agreement will make brigatinib widely available to patients who may benefit from its use, say the companies.

If a patient is unable to remain on brigatinib for 3 months or longer because of effectiveness or tolerability, Takeda will refund a yet unspecified amount of money to Point32Health. Brigatinib’s list price is $17,000 for a month’s treatment.

“Given the importance of facilitating cutting-edge oncology treatment and also the reality that not all patients show a positive response, reimbursement for oncology treatments is an area that is prime for innovative financing approaches,” said Michael Sherman, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president, Point32Health, in a statement. “Collaborating with Takeda to share risk makes this agreement a crucial milestone in bringing cost-effectiveness to cancer care.”

The Pfizer program for crizotinib is somewhat different. For one thing, Pfizer’s refund is offered to any patient who qualifies and not just those who are covered by a specific plan. Second, Takeda is thus far only refunding money to the insurer, whereas Pfizer will also reimburse patients for out-of-pocket expenses.

There is a similar approach that has been offered by Novartis for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), the CAR T-cell therapy that launched with a daunting price tag of $475,000. After receiving backlash over the cost, Novartis announced that if the drug does not work after the first month, patients pay nothing.

In addition, Italy has been using this system for several years. Pharmaceutical companies must refund money if the drug fails to work. In 2015, the state-run health care system collected 200 million euros ($220 million) in refunds.

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

Takeda Pharmaceuticals is now the latest pharmaceutical company to offer a value-based agreement on one of its new targeted therapies.

The rebate offer is for brigatinib (Alunbrig) which is approved for the treatment of adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The move follows a rebate offer from Pfizer for crizotinib (Xalkori), which is also approved for ALK+ (as well as ROS1+) NSCLC, and also for ALK+ anaplastic large cell lymphoma

For its offer, Takeda has teamed up with Point32Health, the second-largest health plan in New England with about 2.3 million members. The new agreement will make brigatinib widely available to patients who may benefit from its use, say the companies.

If a patient is unable to remain on brigatinib for 3 months or longer because of effectiveness or tolerability, Takeda will refund a yet unspecified amount of money to Point32Health. Brigatinib’s list price is $17,000 for a month’s treatment.

“Given the importance of facilitating cutting-edge oncology treatment and also the reality that not all patients show a positive response, reimbursement for oncology treatments is an area that is prime for innovative financing approaches,” said Michael Sherman, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president, Point32Health, in a statement. “Collaborating with Takeda to share risk makes this agreement a crucial milestone in bringing cost-effectiveness to cancer care.”

The Pfizer program for crizotinib is somewhat different. For one thing, Pfizer’s refund is offered to any patient who qualifies and not just those who are covered by a specific plan. Second, Takeda is thus far only refunding money to the insurer, whereas Pfizer will also reimburse patients for out-of-pocket expenses.

There is a similar approach that has been offered by Novartis for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), the CAR T-cell therapy that launched with a daunting price tag of $475,000. After receiving backlash over the cost, Novartis announced that if the drug does not work after the first month, patients pay nothing.

In addition, Italy has been using this system for several years. Pharmaceutical companies must refund money if the drug fails to work. In 2015, the state-run health care system collected 200 million euros ($220 million) in refunds.

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

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.