Oncology

While the incidence of lung cancer is decreasing in men, it continues to rise in women. With more than 19,000 new cases in France each year, lung cancer is now the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. This trend is also seen in other European countries but appears to be region-specific because other continents report a decline in incidence among women. Moreover, although overall prognosis remains better in the female population, the trend is worrying: Mortality associated with the disease is increasing in women, unlike in men with lung cancer. A session at the French-Language Pneumology Congress held from January 30 to February 1, 2026, in Lille, France, provided an opportunity to review the situation.

Efficacy and Toxicity

Lung tumors in women have a distinct tumor profile: Women have a higher proportion of adenocarcinomas than men and a higher frequency of somatic mutations (EGFR, BRAF, or HER2), including in nonsmokers. In addition, 65% of lung cancers in women are associated with smoking compared with 87% of those in men.

The role of estrogens is central because they interact directly with tumor growth signaling pathways. Moreover, “sex is the second leading factor of variability in drug pharmacokinetics after weight and accounts for 28% of anticancer drug kinetics,” emphasized Julien Mazières, pulmonologist, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. Also involved in this equation are a higher body fat percentage, lower gastric acidity, and, above all, reduced renal and hepatic clearance.

As a result, exposure to drugs — represented by the area under the curve — is often greater in women and translates into not only improved progression-free survival with targeted therapies and chemotherapy but also increased toxicity. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are among the drugs whose kinetics are most affected by clearance. There are differences in clearance of more than 20% for these drugs in women vs men, though dosages are not systematically adjusted except for weight-based dosing. This vulnerability to adverse effects is particularly pronounced with targeted therapies, with more neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal disorders. Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer by sex are contradictory. However, endocrine-related adverse effects and pneumonitis are more frequent in women, especially before menopause.

Women remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and sex-specific analyses of results are too rarely performed, which limits understanding of mechanisms and prevents tailoring management recommendations according to sex.

Impaired Quality of Life

Lung cancer most severely impairs physical functioning in women. “In the absence of sex-stratified studies, psycho-oncologists’ experience suggests that women have more cognitive disorders, anxiety, and depression associated with this disease. Its impact on quality of life is major, with deterioration of social relationships and reduced treatment adherence,” summarized Céline Mascaux, MD, PhD, pulmonologist, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France. Women also face social and family pressure — a mental burden that pushes them to “hold on” for their loved ones. Regarding sexual health, women with lung cancer who are sexually active often report dissatisfaction with the quality of their sexual relations because of fatigue, lack of energy, sadness, and shortness of breath, not to mention treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These problems are often not given sufficient attention by physicians.

Finally, fertility requires greater attention from the medical community: According to the VICAN study conducted by France’s National Health Insurance Fund, a discussion about fertility preservation did not take place at the time of cancer diagnosis for 60% of men and 67% of women of childbearing age. “In lung cancer specifically, the desire for children nevertheless exists in nearly 40% of patients of childbearing age,” regretted Jacques Cadranel, pulmonologist, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France. This desire does not appear to have influenced therapeutic strategy, and fertility preservation was ultimately proposed in only a third of cases and was carried out in only 3% of women compared with21% of men.

This story has been translated from Univadis France, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com

While the incidence of lung cancer is decreasing in men, it continues to rise in women. With more than 19,000 new cases in France each year, lung cancer is now the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. This trend is also seen in other European countries but appears to be region-specific because other continents report a decline in incidence among women. Moreover, although overall prognosis remains better in the female population, the trend is worrying: Mortality associated with the disease is increasing in women, unlike in men with lung cancer. A session at the French-Language Pneumology Congress held from January 30 to February 1, 2026, in Lille, France, provided an opportunity to review the situation.

Efficacy and Toxicity

Lung tumors in women have a distinct tumor profile: Women have a higher proportion of adenocarcinomas than men and a higher frequency of somatic mutations (EGFR, BRAF, or HER2), including in nonsmokers. In addition, 65% of lung cancers in women are associated with smoking compared with 87% of those in men.

The role of estrogens is central because they interact directly with tumor growth signaling pathways. Moreover, “sex is the second leading factor of variability in drug pharmacokinetics after weight and accounts for 28% of anticancer drug kinetics,” emphasized Julien Mazières, pulmonologist, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. Also involved in this equation are a higher body fat percentage, lower gastric acidity, and, above all, reduced renal and hepatic clearance.

As a result, exposure to drugs — represented by the area under the curve — is often greater in women and translates into not only improved progression-free survival with targeted therapies and chemotherapy but also increased toxicity. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are among the drugs whose kinetics are most affected by clearance. There are differences in clearance of more than 20% for these drugs in women vs men, though dosages are not systematically adjusted except for weight-based dosing. This vulnerability to adverse effects is particularly pronounced with targeted therapies, with more neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal disorders. Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer by sex are contradictory. However, endocrine-related adverse effects and pneumonitis are more frequent in women, especially before menopause.

Women remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and sex-specific analyses of results are too rarely performed, which limits understanding of mechanisms and prevents tailoring management recommendations according to sex.

Impaired Quality of Life

Lung cancer most severely impairs physical functioning in women. “In the absence of sex-stratified studies, psycho-oncologists’ experience suggests that women have more cognitive disorders, anxiety, and depression associated with this disease. Its impact on quality of life is major, with deterioration of social relationships and reduced treatment adherence,” summarized Céline Mascaux, MD, PhD, pulmonologist, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France. Women also face social and family pressure — a mental burden that pushes them to “hold on” for their loved ones. Regarding sexual health, women with lung cancer who are sexually active often report dissatisfaction with the quality of their sexual relations because of fatigue, lack of energy, sadness, and shortness of breath, not to mention treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These problems are often not given sufficient attention by physicians.

Finally, fertility requires greater attention from the medical community: According to the VICAN study conducted by France’s National Health Insurance Fund, a discussion about fertility preservation did not take place at the time of cancer diagnosis for 60% of men and 67% of women of childbearing age. “In lung cancer specifically, the desire for children nevertheless exists in nearly 40% of patients of childbearing age,” regretted Jacques Cadranel, pulmonologist, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France. This desire does not appear to have influenced therapeutic strategy, and fertility preservation was ultimately proposed in only a third of cases and was carried out in only 3% of women compared with21% of men.

This story has been translated from Univadis France, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com

While the incidence of lung cancer is decreasing in men, it continues to rise in women. With more than 19,000 new cases in France each year, lung cancer is now the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. This trend is also seen in other European countries but appears to be region-specific because other continents report a decline in incidence among women. Moreover, although overall prognosis remains better in the female population, the trend is worrying: Mortality associated with the disease is increasing in women, unlike in men with lung cancer. A session at the French-Language Pneumology Congress held from January 30 to February 1, 2026, in Lille, France, provided an opportunity to review the situation.

Efficacy and Toxicity

Lung tumors in women have a distinct tumor profile: Women have a higher proportion of adenocarcinomas than men and a higher frequency of somatic mutations (EGFR, BRAF, or HER2), including in nonsmokers. In addition, 65% of lung cancers in women are associated with smoking compared with 87% of those in men.

The role of estrogens is central because they interact directly with tumor growth signaling pathways. Moreover, “sex is the second leading factor of variability in drug pharmacokinetics after weight and accounts for 28% of anticancer drug kinetics,” emphasized Julien Mazières, pulmonologist, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. Also involved in this equation are a higher body fat percentage, lower gastric acidity, and, above all, reduced renal and hepatic clearance.

As a result, exposure to drugs — represented by the area under the curve — is often greater in women and translates into not only improved progression-free survival with targeted therapies and chemotherapy but also increased toxicity. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are among the drugs whose kinetics are most affected by clearance. There are differences in clearance of more than 20% for these drugs in women vs men, though dosages are not systematically adjusted except for weight-based dosing. This vulnerability to adverse effects is particularly pronounced with targeted therapies, with more neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal disorders. Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer by sex are contradictory. However, endocrine-related adverse effects and pneumonitis are more frequent in women, especially before menopause.

Women remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and sex-specific analyses of results are too rarely performed, which limits understanding of mechanisms and prevents tailoring management recommendations according to sex.

Impaired Quality of Life

Lung cancer most severely impairs physical functioning in women. “In the absence of sex-stratified studies, psycho-oncologists’ experience suggests that women have more cognitive disorders, anxiety, and depression associated with this disease. Its impact on quality of life is major, with deterioration of social relationships and reduced treatment adherence,” summarized Céline Mascaux, MD, PhD, pulmonologist, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France. Women also face social and family pressure — a mental burden that pushes them to “hold on” for their loved ones. Regarding sexual health, women with lung cancer who are sexually active often report dissatisfaction with the quality of their sexual relations because of fatigue, lack of energy, sadness, and shortness of breath, not to mention treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These problems are often not given sufficient attention by physicians.

Finally, fertility requires greater attention from the medical community: According to the VICAN study conducted by France’s National Health Insurance Fund, a discussion about fertility preservation did not take place at the time of cancer diagnosis for 60% of men and 67% of women of childbearing age. “In lung cancer specifically, the desire for children nevertheless exists in nearly 40% of patients of childbearing age,” regretted Jacques Cadranel, pulmonologist, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France. This desire does not appear to have influenced therapeutic strategy, and fertility preservation was ultimately proposed in only a third of cases and was carried out in only 3% of women compared with21% of men.

This story has been translated from Univadis France, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com

A pilot program appeared to more than double the rate of germline genetic testing among veterans with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) by using remote communication rather than relying on clinicians for in-person outreach to patients. 

Of 1952 veterans with mPC, 681 (34.9%) provided consent and 459 (23.5%) completed testing, exceeding the usual 10% to 12% of patients who undergo testing, reported Bruce Montgomery, MD, et al in Cancer.

Although testing is recommended for all patients with mPC to guide therapy and alert relatives who may be at risk, 23.5% is still an impressive number, Montgomery, an oncologist with Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle told Federal Practitioner: “With a letter and very little money and very little real time from clinicians, we could get testing done at 3 times the rate happening out there in the big wide world,” he said. “For 2000 patients, we needed one research coordinator and a small part of a genetic counselor's time.”

According to the study, germline genetic testing—which examines inherited DNA—is now recommended for all men with mPC by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American Urological Association. Germline genetic testing differs from somatic testing, which seeks genetic changes in the tumors themselves.

In the VA and community at large, the percentage of men with mPC who undergo germline genetic testing is low, Montgomery said. Research suggests < 40% of patients undergo somatic testing.

Germline genetic testing only costs about 10% compared with somatic testing, Montgomery said, and can be conducted at any time. In about 10% of mPC cases, the testing provides insight into the best treatment, he said.

Montgomery noted another benefit to germline genetic testing: It can raise the alarm about pathogenic variants that could boost cancer risk in family members, allowing them to get screened and take action.

There are many reasons veterans do not get tested, Montgomery said. The process is not automatic because patient consent is needed, and clinicians often fail to ask. In some cases, veterans worry about privacy or whether they will lose service-connected benefits if their cancer is blamed on genetics.

The study focused on 2104 veterans with mPC who had already agreed to take part in the Million Veteran Program, a prospective cohort study examining genetic and nongenetic risk for disease. The genetic analysis from that project did not provide guidance about mPC, so researchers approached the veterans directly.

Patients were enrolled from February 2021 to October 2023. A total of 1952 veterans did not opt out when contacted by mail (median age, 75 years; 63% White, 25% Black; 74% urban and 24% rural). The median age of those who consented and completed testing after phone contact was 74 years; 67% of patients were White and 22% were Black; 78% of patients lived in urban communities and 20% lived in rural communities.

Fifty-nine patients (13%) had pathogenic variants, and 37 of those had variants that indicated treatment with targeted therapies. Of the 37, 14 received targeted therapy, 18 were not at the point where targeted therapy was indicated, and 5 were not treated with targeted therapy for various reasons before they died.

Twelve of the 59 patients with pathogenic variants agreed to let the study team contact their first-degree relatives. Thirty relatives underwent testing, and 10 of them were positive for the variants.

Following completion of the study, researchers examined electronic records for the 59 patients with pathogenic variants and found that 19% did not have documentation of the germline finding in the medical record. The authors cited an “urgent need” to standardize where genetic information is included in the records.

While “it seems like a very small number of patients took up testing,” Montgomery said, the study findings are promising: “If we did the same thing nationally in the VA, there would be 15,000 men with metastatic disease, and we’d be testing 5000 of them with almost no effort.”

In an interview, Susan Vadaparampil, PhD, MPH, associate center director of Community Outreach and Engagement at Moffitt Cancer Center, who studies genetic testing, praised the strengths of the study. Vadaparampil, who did not take part in the research, told Federal Practitioner that the study relies on “an intervention that could likely be incorporated into routine clinical practice, a less resource-intensive model that provides posttest counseling for those who test positive, and support to share results with family members.”

However, she said, “testing uptake was uneven based on participant sociodemographic characteristics. It's important to consider how discussions and resources to facilitate testing may need to be adapted to meet the needs of all patients.

“Strategies that facilitate clinicians’ knowledge, comfort, and consistency in discussing testing with all mPC patients are essential,” Vadaparampil added. “Simultaneously using multiple strategies targeted to different levels can further help boost uptake.”

The study was funded by the VA Office of Research and Development, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Pacific Northwest Prostate Cancer SPORE, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), and Put VA Data to Work for Veterans. 

Montgomery discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, INmune Bio, Clovis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Some other authors report various disclosures. Vadaparampil has no disclosures.

A pilot program appeared to more than double the rate of germline genetic testing among veterans with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) by using remote communication rather than relying on clinicians for in-person outreach to patients. 

Of 1952 veterans with mPC, 681 (34.9%) provided consent and 459 (23.5%) completed testing, exceeding the usual 10% to 12% of patients who undergo testing, reported Bruce Montgomery, MD, et al in Cancer.

Although testing is recommended for all patients with mPC to guide therapy and alert relatives who may be at risk, 23.5% is still an impressive number, Montgomery, an oncologist with Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle told Federal Practitioner: “With a letter and very little money and very little real time from clinicians, we could get testing done at 3 times the rate happening out there in the big wide world,” he said. “For 2000 patients, we needed one research coordinator and a small part of a genetic counselor's time.”

According to the study, germline genetic testing—which examines inherited DNA—is now recommended for all men with mPC by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American Urological Association. Germline genetic testing differs from somatic testing, which seeks genetic changes in the tumors themselves.

In the VA and community at large, the percentage of men with mPC who undergo germline genetic testing is low, Montgomery said. Research suggests < 40% of patients undergo somatic testing.

Germline genetic testing only costs about 10% compared with somatic testing, Montgomery said, and can be conducted at any time. In about 10% of mPC cases, the testing provides insight into the best treatment, he said.

Montgomery noted another benefit to germline genetic testing: It can raise the alarm about pathogenic variants that could boost cancer risk in family members, allowing them to get screened and take action.

There are many reasons veterans do not get tested, Montgomery said. The process is not automatic because patient consent is needed, and clinicians often fail to ask. In some cases, veterans worry about privacy or whether they will lose service-connected benefits if their cancer is blamed on genetics.

The study focused on 2104 veterans with mPC who had already agreed to take part in the Million Veteran Program, a prospective cohort study examining genetic and nongenetic risk for disease. The genetic analysis from that project did not provide guidance about mPC, so researchers approached the veterans directly.

Patients were enrolled from February 2021 to October 2023. A total of 1952 veterans did not opt out when contacted by mail (median age, 75 years; 63% White, 25% Black; 74% urban and 24% rural). The median age of those who consented and completed testing after phone contact was 74 years; 67% of patients were White and 22% were Black; 78% of patients lived in urban communities and 20% lived in rural communities.

Fifty-nine patients (13%) had pathogenic variants, and 37 of those had variants that indicated treatment with targeted therapies. Of the 37, 14 received targeted therapy, 18 were not at the point where targeted therapy was indicated, and 5 were not treated with targeted therapy for various reasons before they died.

Twelve of the 59 patients with pathogenic variants agreed to let the study team contact their first-degree relatives. Thirty relatives underwent testing, and 10 of them were positive for the variants.

Following completion of the study, researchers examined electronic records for the 59 patients with pathogenic variants and found that 19% did not have documentation of the germline finding in the medical record. The authors cited an “urgent need” to standardize where genetic information is included in the records.

While “it seems like a very small number of patients took up testing,” Montgomery said, the study findings are promising: “If we did the same thing nationally in the VA, there would be 15,000 men with metastatic disease, and we’d be testing 5000 of them with almost no effort.”

In an interview, Susan Vadaparampil, PhD, MPH, associate center director of Community Outreach and Engagement at Moffitt Cancer Center, who studies genetic testing, praised the strengths of the study. Vadaparampil, who did not take part in the research, told Federal Practitioner that the study relies on “an intervention that could likely be incorporated into routine clinical practice, a less resource-intensive model that provides posttest counseling for those who test positive, and support to share results with family members.”

However, she said, “testing uptake was uneven based on participant sociodemographic characteristics. It's important to consider how discussions and resources to facilitate testing may need to be adapted to meet the needs of all patients.

“Strategies that facilitate clinicians’ knowledge, comfort, and consistency in discussing testing with all mPC patients are essential,” Vadaparampil added. “Simultaneously using multiple strategies targeted to different levels can further help boost uptake.”

The study was funded by the VA Office of Research and Development, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Pacific Northwest Prostate Cancer SPORE, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), and Put VA Data to Work for Veterans. 

Montgomery discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, INmune Bio, Clovis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Some other authors report various disclosures. Vadaparampil has no disclosures.

A pilot program appeared to more than double the rate of germline genetic testing among veterans with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) by using remote communication rather than relying on clinicians for in-person outreach to patients. 

Of 1952 veterans with mPC, 681 (34.9%) provided consent and 459 (23.5%) completed testing, exceeding the usual 10% to 12% of patients who undergo testing, reported Bruce Montgomery, MD, et al in Cancer.

Although testing is recommended for all patients with mPC to guide therapy and alert relatives who may be at risk, 23.5% is still an impressive number, Montgomery, an oncologist with Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle told Federal Practitioner: “With a letter and very little money and very little real time from clinicians, we could get testing done at 3 times the rate happening out there in the big wide world,” he said. “For 2000 patients, we needed one research coordinator and a small part of a genetic counselor's time.”

According to the study, germline genetic testing—which examines inherited DNA—is now recommended for all men with mPC by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American Urological Association. Germline genetic testing differs from somatic testing, which seeks genetic changes in the tumors themselves.

In the VA and community at large, the percentage of men with mPC who undergo germline genetic testing is low, Montgomery said. Research suggests < 40% of patients undergo somatic testing.

Germline genetic testing only costs about 10% compared with somatic testing, Montgomery said, and can be conducted at any time. In about 10% of mPC cases, the testing provides insight into the best treatment, he said.

Montgomery noted another benefit to germline genetic testing: It can raise the alarm about pathogenic variants that could boost cancer risk in family members, allowing them to get screened and take action.

There are many reasons veterans do not get tested, Montgomery said. The process is not automatic because patient consent is needed, and clinicians often fail to ask. In some cases, veterans worry about privacy or whether they will lose service-connected benefits if their cancer is blamed on genetics.

The study focused on 2104 veterans with mPC who had already agreed to take part in the Million Veteran Program, a prospective cohort study examining genetic and nongenetic risk for disease. The genetic analysis from that project did not provide guidance about mPC, so researchers approached the veterans directly.

Patients were enrolled from February 2021 to October 2023. A total of 1952 veterans did not opt out when contacted by mail (median age, 75 years; 63% White, 25% Black; 74% urban and 24% rural). The median age of those who consented and completed testing after phone contact was 74 years; 67% of patients were White and 22% were Black; 78% of patients lived in urban communities and 20% lived in rural communities.

Fifty-nine patients (13%) had pathogenic variants, and 37 of those had variants that indicated treatment with targeted therapies. Of the 37, 14 received targeted therapy, 18 were not at the point where targeted therapy was indicated, and 5 were not treated with targeted therapy for various reasons before they died.

Twelve of the 59 patients with pathogenic variants agreed to let the study team contact their first-degree relatives. Thirty relatives underwent testing, and 10 of them were positive for the variants.

Following completion of the study, researchers examined electronic records for the 59 patients with pathogenic variants and found that 19% did not have documentation of the germline finding in the medical record. The authors cited an “urgent need” to standardize where genetic information is included in the records.

While “it seems like a very small number of patients took up testing,” Montgomery said, the study findings are promising: “If we did the same thing nationally in the VA, there would be 15,000 men with metastatic disease, and we’d be testing 5000 of them with almost no effort.”

In an interview, Susan Vadaparampil, PhD, MPH, associate center director of Community Outreach and Engagement at Moffitt Cancer Center, who studies genetic testing, praised the strengths of the study. Vadaparampil, who did not take part in the research, told Federal Practitioner that the study relies on “an intervention that could likely be incorporated into routine clinical practice, a less resource-intensive model that provides posttest counseling for those who test positive, and support to share results with family members.”

However, she said, “testing uptake was uneven based on participant sociodemographic characteristics. It's important to consider how discussions and resources to facilitate testing may need to be adapted to meet the needs of all patients.

“Strategies that facilitate clinicians’ knowledge, comfort, and consistency in discussing testing with all mPC patients are essential,” Vadaparampil added. “Simultaneously using multiple strategies targeted to different levels can further help boost uptake.”

The study was funded by the VA Office of Research and Development, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Pacific Northwest Prostate Cancer SPORE, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), and Put VA Data to Work for Veterans. 

Montgomery discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, INmune Bio, Clovis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Some other authors report various disclosures. Vadaparampil has no disclosures.

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

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diet and Cancer

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

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

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

Myeloma and Diet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diet and Cancer

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

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

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

Myeloma and Diet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diet and Cancer

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

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

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

Myeloma and Diet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY

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

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

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

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

TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY

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

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

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

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

TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY

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

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

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

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

TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also aimed to temper expectations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also aimed to temper expectations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also aimed to temper expectations.

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

First, the good news: Fewer Americans aged < 50 years are dying from cancer vs just a decade ago — reflecting progress in prevention, early detection, and treatment. There is, however, one big exception. Colorectal cancer mortality has been steadily inching up, and the disease now stands as the leading cause of cancer death in this age group, up from the fifth-leading in the early 1990s.

Those are the major findings of a recent study by the American Cancer Society (ACS), published as a research letter in JAMA.

Using SEER data, researchers found that the overall age-adjusted cancer death rate among Americans aged < 50 years dropped by 44% between 1990 and 2023 — from 25.5 to 14.2 per 100,000. And for 4 of the 5 leading causes of cancer death, there were mean annual declines from 2014 to 2023. The biggest change was in lung cancer deaths, which fell by an average of 5.7% per year. Meanwhile, leukemia and breast cancer deaths showed annual declines of 2.3% and 1.4%, respectively, despite rising incidences of both diseases among younger Americans.

The outlier is colorectal cancer, where mortality has been rising by about 1% per year since 2005. And it’s a pattern seen in both men and women.

Study coauthor Nikita Sandeep Wagle, PhD, MBBS, principal scientist, Cancer Surveillance Research at the ACS, and Arif Kamal, MD, ACS chief patient officer, discussed the research and its implications with Medscape Medical News.

Can you offer some possible reasons for the declining mortality in most of the cancers you studied?

Wagle: Mortality is going down for most of the cancers because we are getting better at finding cancers earlier and treating them more effectively. We have also seen improvements in screening, imaging, and therapy, and that means more people are being diagnosed at earlier stages and are surviving longer after diagnosis.

Regarding the rise in colorectal cancer mortality, do you think it's due to the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer?

Kamal: Partially, but not completely, because the relationship between incidence and mortality is not always straightforward. For example, breast cancer incidence has been increasing, while mortality is going down. The rising mortality in people younger than 50 years is likely suggestive of more aggressive cancers being diagnosed — potentially secondary to environmental, dietary, or lifestyle factors. The colon is a unique organ because everything we put in our bodies passes through the colon, so food-based risk factors — for example, low fiber intake, red meat, and ultra-processed foods — are increasingly rising to the top as culprits.

Further, we know that only about 25% of people between the ages of 45 and 50 years are up to date with recommended colon cancer screenings, which can lead to later-stage diagnoses and thus higher mortality. So higher mortality speaks to the need to focus on lifestyle and diet changes and get more younger people to complete recommended cancer screenings.

Wagle: I think the “why” of your question is very important. Many researchers are trying to understand possible causes, such as diet, lifestyle, environmental factors, and genetics. But we cannot pinpoint one single cause. We need even more focus on research toward understanding the etiology of early-onset colorectal cancer.

What makes colorectal cancer different is that, unlike some other major cancers in this age group where mortality has declined despite rising incidence, roughly 3 in 4 colorectal cancers diagnosed in people younger than 50 years are [regional or distant], where the outcomes are worse.

Can you contextualize the rise in colorectal cancer mortality? What is the absolute rate among younger Americans now?

Wagle: It is around two deaths per 100,000 population in 2023 for people younger than 50 years. That number may not seem large, but the upward trend — a 1.1% annual increase from 2014 to 2023 — is concerning when you think about how overall mortality in this age group has dropped substantially over the past few decades. Colorectal cancer is moving in the opposite direction. I think the hopeful part is that it is also one of the most preventable cancers. Screening can stop cancer before it starts by removing precancerous polyps. Early-stage disease is highly treatable, and outcomes are better. That means better awareness and timely screening could make a real difference.

How can clinicians use this new information with regard to screening?

Wagle: For cancers with established screening guidelines, such as colorectal cancer, clinicians should continue to emphasize guideline-based screening and individualized risk assessment.

For colorectal cancer, screening now is recommended to start at age 45 for individuals at average risk, and earlier for [some], due to family history or other risk factors. Clinicians can use these findings to remind younger individuals that colorectal cancer is not only a disease of older adults and that screening at the recommended age can save lives.

In addition, red-flag symptoms such as persistent rectal bleeding, unexplained abdominal pain, difficulty in bowel movements, or signs of anemia should prompt appropriate evaluation in younger individuals.

Kamal: Clinicians should continue to emphasize timely completion of regular screening, starting at age 45 [for average-risk people]. Many still believe that the recommended starting age is 50 or that colonoscopy is the only way to get screened. Highlighting home-based screening options often helps patients make cancer screening logistically fit better into their busy lives.

Could you elaborate on the red-flag symptoms you mentioned, and what is an appropriate evaluation in younger individuals?

Kamal: Appropriate evaluation for any suspected bleeding — bright red or black and tarry — starts with an in-office evaluation by a primary care physician. Referral to a specialist, such as a gastroenterologist or surgeon, is done later, typically for direct visualization, such as with a colonoscopy. Rarely, imaging such as CT scans or ultrasounds is performed. Overall, because of the rising incidence of colon cancer in younger people, any concerning symptoms should be reported to a physician for an in-office evaluation as the first step.

Do these findings suggest that the starting age for average-risk people should be lowered—to age 40, for example?

Kamal: ACS screening guidelines for all cancers are part of an ongoing guideline development process by ACS scientists and volunteers. We monitor medical and scientific literature for new evidence that may support a change in current guidelines or the development of new guidelines and for information about cancer screening that should be conveyed to clinicians and target populations.

Keith Mulvihill is a freelance writer based in New York City.

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

First, the good news: Fewer Americans aged < 50 years are dying from cancer vs just a decade ago — reflecting progress in prevention, early detection, and treatment. There is, however, one big exception. Colorectal cancer mortality has been steadily inching up, and the disease now stands as the leading cause of cancer death in this age group, up from the fifth-leading in the early 1990s.

Those are the major findings of a recent study by the American Cancer Society (ACS), published as a research letter in JAMA.

Using SEER data, researchers found that the overall age-adjusted cancer death rate among Americans aged < 50 years dropped by 44% between 1990 and 2023 — from 25.5 to 14.2 per 100,000. And for 4 of the 5 leading causes of cancer death, there were mean annual declines from 2014 to 2023. The biggest change was in lung cancer deaths, which fell by an average of 5.7% per year. Meanwhile, leukemia and breast cancer deaths showed annual declines of 2.3% and 1.4%, respectively, despite rising incidences of both diseases among younger Americans.

The outlier is colorectal cancer, where mortality has been rising by about 1% per year since 2005. And it’s a pattern seen in both men and women.

Study coauthor Nikita Sandeep Wagle, PhD, MBBS, principal scientist, Cancer Surveillance Research at the ACS, and Arif Kamal, MD, ACS chief patient officer, discussed the research and its implications with Medscape Medical News.

Can you offer some possible reasons for the declining mortality in most of the cancers you studied?

Wagle: Mortality is going down for most of the cancers because we are getting better at finding cancers earlier and treating them more effectively. We have also seen improvements in screening, imaging, and therapy, and that means more people are being diagnosed at earlier stages and are surviving longer after diagnosis.

Regarding the rise in colorectal cancer mortality, do you think it's due to the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer?

Kamal: Partially, but not completely, because the relationship between incidence and mortality is not always straightforward. For example, breast cancer incidence has been increasing, while mortality is going down. The rising mortality in people younger than 50 years is likely suggestive of more aggressive cancers being diagnosed — potentially secondary to environmental, dietary, or lifestyle factors. The colon is a unique organ because everything we put in our bodies passes through the colon, so food-based risk factors — for example, low fiber intake, red meat, and ultra-processed foods — are increasingly rising to the top as culprits.

Further, we know that only about 25% of people between the ages of 45 and 50 years are up to date with recommended colon cancer screenings, which can lead to later-stage diagnoses and thus higher mortality. So higher mortality speaks to the need to focus on lifestyle and diet changes and get more younger people to complete recommended cancer screenings.

Wagle: I think the “why” of your question is very important. Many researchers are trying to understand possible causes, such as diet, lifestyle, environmental factors, and genetics. But we cannot pinpoint one single cause. We need even more focus on research toward understanding the etiology of early-onset colorectal cancer.

What makes colorectal cancer different is that, unlike some other major cancers in this age group where mortality has declined despite rising incidence, roughly 3 in 4 colorectal cancers diagnosed in people younger than 50 years are [regional or distant], where the outcomes are worse.

Can you contextualize the rise in colorectal cancer mortality? What is the absolute rate among younger Americans now?

Wagle: It is around two deaths per 100,000 population in 2023 for people younger than 50 years. That number may not seem large, but the upward trend — a 1.1% annual increase from 2014 to 2023 — is concerning when you think about how overall mortality in this age group has dropped substantially over the past few decades. Colorectal cancer is moving in the opposite direction. I think the hopeful part is that it is also one of the most preventable cancers. Screening can stop cancer before it starts by removing precancerous polyps. Early-stage disease is highly treatable, and outcomes are better. That means better awareness and timely screening could make a real difference.

How can clinicians use this new information with regard to screening?

Wagle: For cancers with established screening guidelines, such as colorectal cancer, clinicians should continue to emphasize guideline-based screening and individualized risk assessment.

For colorectal cancer, screening now is recommended to start at age 45 for individuals at average risk, and earlier for [some], due to family history or other risk factors. Clinicians can use these findings to remind younger individuals that colorectal cancer is not only a disease of older adults and that screening at the recommended age can save lives.

In addition, red-flag symptoms such as persistent rectal bleeding, unexplained abdominal pain, difficulty in bowel movements, or signs of anemia should prompt appropriate evaluation in younger individuals.

Kamal: Clinicians should continue to emphasize timely completion of regular screening, starting at age 45 [for average-risk people]. Many still believe that the recommended starting age is 50 or that colonoscopy is the only way to get screened. Highlighting home-based screening options often helps patients make cancer screening logistically fit better into their busy lives.

Could you elaborate on the red-flag symptoms you mentioned, and what is an appropriate evaluation in younger individuals?

Kamal: Appropriate evaluation for any suspected bleeding — bright red or black and tarry — starts with an in-office evaluation by a primary care physician. Referral to a specialist, such as a gastroenterologist or surgeon, is done later, typically for direct visualization, such as with a colonoscopy. Rarely, imaging such as CT scans or ultrasounds is performed. Overall, because of the rising incidence of colon cancer in younger people, any concerning symptoms should be reported to a physician for an in-office evaluation as the first step.

Do these findings suggest that the starting age for average-risk people should be lowered—to age 40, for example?

Kamal: ACS screening guidelines for all cancers are part of an ongoing guideline development process by ACS scientists and volunteers. We monitor medical and scientific literature for new evidence that may support a change in current guidelines or the development of new guidelines and for information about cancer screening that should be conveyed to clinicians and target populations.

Keith Mulvihill is a freelance writer based in New York City.

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

First, the good news: Fewer Americans aged < 50 years are dying from cancer vs just a decade ago — reflecting progress in prevention, early detection, and treatment. There is, however, one big exception. Colorectal cancer mortality has been steadily inching up, and the disease now stands as the leading cause of cancer death in this age group, up from the fifth-leading in the early 1990s.

Those are the major findings of a recent study by the American Cancer Society (ACS), published as a research letter in JAMA.

Using SEER data, researchers found that the overall age-adjusted cancer death rate among Americans aged < 50 years dropped by 44% between 1990 and 2023 — from 25.5 to 14.2 per 100,000. And for 4 of the 5 leading causes of cancer death, there were mean annual declines from 2014 to 2023. The biggest change was in lung cancer deaths, which fell by an average of 5.7% per year. Meanwhile, leukemia and breast cancer deaths showed annual declines of 2.3% and 1.4%, respectively, despite rising incidences of both diseases among younger Americans.

The outlier is colorectal cancer, where mortality has been rising by about 1% per year since 2005. And it’s a pattern seen in both men and women.

Study coauthor Nikita Sandeep Wagle, PhD, MBBS, principal scientist, Cancer Surveillance Research at the ACS, and Arif Kamal, MD, ACS chief patient officer, discussed the research and its implications with Medscape Medical News.

Can you offer some possible reasons for the declining mortality in most of the cancers you studied?

Wagle: Mortality is going down for most of the cancers because we are getting better at finding cancers earlier and treating them more effectively. We have also seen improvements in screening, imaging, and therapy, and that means more people are being diagnosed at earlier stages and are surviving longer after diagnosis.

Regarding the rise in colorectal cancer mortality, do you think it's due to the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer?

Kamal: Partially, but not completely, because the relationship between incidence and mortality is not always straightforward. For example, breast cancer incidence has been increasing, while mortality is going down. The rising mortality in people younger than 50 years is likely suggestive of more aggressive cancers being diagnosed — potentially secondary to environmental, dietary, or lifestyle factors. The colon is a unique organ because everything we put in our bodies passes through the colon, so food-based risk factors — for example, low fiber intake, red meat, and ultra-processed foods — are increasingly rising to the top as culprits.

Further, we know that only about 25% of people between the ages of 45 and 50 years are up to date with recommended colon cancer screenings, which can lead to later-stage diagnoses and thus higher mortality. So higher mortality speaks to the need to focus on lifestyle and diet changes and get more younger people to complete recommended cancer screenings.

Wagle: I think the “why” of your question is very important. Many researchers are trying to understand possible causes, such as diet, lifestyle, environmental factors, and genetics. But we cannot pinpoint one single cause. We need even more focus on research toward understanding the etiology of early-onset colorectal cancer.

What makes colorectal cancer different is that, unlike some other major cancers in this age group where mortality has declined despite rising incidence, roughly 3 in 4 colorectal cancers diagnosed in people younger than 50 years are [regional or distant], where the outcomes are worse.

Can you contextualize the rise in colorectal cancer mortality? What is the absolute rate among younger Americans now?

Wagle: It is around two deaths per 100,000 population in 2023 for people younger than 50 years. That number may not seem large, but the upward trend — a 1.1% annual increase from 2014 to 2023 — is concerning when you think about how overall mortality in this age group has dropped substantially over the past few decades. Colorectal cancer is moving in the opposite direction. I think the hopeful part is that it is also one of the most preventable cancers. Screening can stop cancer before it starts by removing precancerous polyps. Early-stage disease is highly treatable, and outcomes are better. That means better awareness and timely screening could make a real difference.

How can clinicians use this new information with regard to screening?

Wagle: For cancers with established screening guidelines, such as colorectal cancer, clinicians should continue to emphasize guideline-based screening and individualized risk assessment.

For colorectal cancer, screening now is recommended to start at age 45 for individuals at average risk, and earlier for [some], due to family history or other risk factors. Clinicians can use these findings to remind younger individuals that colorectal cancer is not only a disease of older adults and that screening at the recommended age can save lives.

In addition, red-flag symptoms such as persistent rectal bleeding, unexplained abdominal pain, difficulty in bowel movements, or signs of anemia should prompt appropriate evaluation in younger individuals.

Kamal: Clinicians should continue to emphasize timely completion of regular screening, starting at age 45 [for average-risk people]. Many still believe that the recommended starting age is 50 or that colonoscopy is the only way to get screened. Highlighting home-based screening options often helps patients make cancer screening logistically fit better into their busy lives.

Could you elaborate on the red-flag symptoms you mentioned, and what is an appropriate evaluation in younger individuals?

Kamal: Appropriate evaluation for any suspected bleeding — bright red or black and tarry — starts with an in-office evaluation by a primary care physician. Referral to a specialist, such as a gastroenterologist or surgeon, is done later, typically for direct visualization, such as with a colonoscopy. Rarely, imaging such as CT scans or ultrasounds is performed. Overall, because of the rising incidence of colon cancer in younger people, any concerning symptoms should be reported to a physician for an in-office evaluation as the first step.

Do these findings suggest that the starting age for average-risk people should be lowered—to age 40, for example?

Kamal: ACS screening guidelines for all cancers are part of an ongoing guideline development process by ACS scientists and volunteers. We monitor medical and scientific literature for new evidence that may support a change in current guidelines or the development of new guidelines and for information about cancer screening that should be conveyed to clinicians and target populations.

Keith Mulvihill is a freelance writer based in New York City.

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

Diets heavy in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are associated with earlier death in cancer survivors, a new study finds — though issues with the research design suggest that the findings should be taken with a grain of salt.

The study, published on February 4 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, is among the latest to point to health hazards from eating too many foods full of preservatives, dyes, and other industrially made ingredients.

These so-called UPFs have been linked to an increased risk for cancer, but whether they have any relationship to long-term survival after cancer has been unclear.

In the new study, of 802 adults with a previous cancer diagnosis, those in the top third for UPF consumption had a 48% higher rate of death from any cause over 15 years than those in the bottom third. Similarly, heavier UPF consumers had a 57% higher rate of death from cancer.

Those excess risks were seen after adjustment for numerous variables, including age, physical activity, BMI, smoking status, and socioeconomic indicators.

“Clinicians should encourage a shift toward fresh, minimally processed foods, [and] away from heavily industrially processed products,” said lead author Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, of the Research Unit of Epidemiology and Prevention at IRCCS Neuromed in Pozzilli, Italy.

Oncologists not involved in the work said the findings support what researchers have suspected.

“UPFs have been linked to increased risk of obesity, diabetes, inflammation, cardiovascular disease, and...all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality,” said Urvi A. Shah, MD, a myeloma specialist who conducts nutrition research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “However, there was limited data on cancer-specific mortality to date until this study.”

The findings also dovetail with recommendations on cancer prevention that emphasize diets rich in plant foods and low in processed foods, particularly those loaded with sugar, starch, and fat.

The study “may make oncologists think twice before assuring patients to ‘eat whatever you want, it doesn’t really matter’ because these investigators show that it does,” said Donald I. Abrams, MD, an integrative oncologist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Health.

However, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Wollongong, Australia, was not impressed by the analysis.

He pointed to several sources of potential bias and noted that the crude results actually showed that cancer survivors with the lowest UPF consumption had a higher rate of death than the heaviest consumers.

“The story of UPFs being bad is consistent with this data, but so is the story of UPFs being fine,” said Meyerowitz-Katz, who has written about prior research on the subject.

The broad questions of whether and how UPFs might be harming human health have been gaining research interest, partly because of their ubiquity. The foods reportedly make up about 60% of the typical American diet.

There’s no universal agreement on the precise definition of “ultraprocessed,” but researchers generally use the NOVA classification system, which assigns foods into one of four groups based on the level and purpose of processing. UPFs contain ingredients not found in the standard home kitchen (such as high-fructose corn syrup) and often have artificial flavors, colors, and other additives.

Examples of UPFs include the usual “junk food,” such as candy, soda, and processed meat, but many healthy-sounding products, such as flavored yogurts and plant-based milk, also qualify.

For their study, Bonaccio and her colleagues identified 802 cancer survivors from the Moli-sani cohort study (476 women and 326 men) who completed food-frequency questionnaires an average of 8 years postdiagnosis.

Using the NOVA system, the team calculated the amount of UPF in participants’ diets as both weight and energy ratios.

Over a median follow-up of nearly 15 years, there were 281 deaths. In the lowest third of UPF consumption (4.3% mean intake by weight), there were 3.3 deaths per 100 patient-years, compared with 2.4 per 100 patient-years in the highest UPF tertile (16.7% mean intake by weight). For cancer-specific deaths, those numbers were 1.5 and 1.4, respectively.

However, after adjustment for age and total energy intake, the top UPF-intake group showed significantly higher death rates. In the final model, which adjusted for > 20 variables, the hazard ratios for the highest versus lowest UPF consumption were 1.48 (95% CI, 1.07-2.03) for all-cause mortality and 1.57 (95% CI, 1.00-2.47) for cancer mortality.

To explore potential biological mechanisms, the researchers also analyzed certain biomarkers. They found that adjustment for inflammatory markers and resting heart rate at baseline attenuated the association between UPF and all-cause deaths by nearly 40%.

The authors acknowledged some limitations of their study, including its use of self-report and potential survivor bias.

But Meyerowitz-Katz found additional weak points. For one, he said the authors “downplayed” the impact of their analysis controlling for inflammation and heart rate.

“Inflammation and heart rate are both strong markers of future cancer risk,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “In this cohort, there would be people who were already experiencing cancer recurrence, which is important to control for at baseline.”

He also highlighted a little-known but important issue in observational research called collider bias, which can create a false association between an exposure and outcome. In this study, he said, the researchers introduced “a huge potential for collider bias” by controlling for energy intake, because both UPF consumption and cancer recurrence are causally associated with energy intake.

Bonaccio called that particular critique “a fair methodological question” but defended her work.

She pointed out that study participants were long-term survivors, which reduces the chance that their calorie intake was mainly driven by active cancer or treatment side effects.

“And,” she said, “our models include a wide set of baseline covariates that capture major determinants of both mortality and dietary intake.”

For Bonaccio, the take-home message for patients remains the same: “Emphasizing simple, home-cooked meals and traditional dietary patterns might be especially beneficial during the survivorship phase.”

The two US experts agreed that overall diet quality is key, with limits on UPFs being part of that. They also noted that the average American’s diet contains substantially more UPFs than what was seen in this Italian study.

“I spend 20 minutes of my 60-minute new patient consult in integrative oncology advising patients to eat an organic, plant-based, antioxidant-rich, anti-inflammatory, real and whole-foods diet,” Abrams said.

For her part, Shah said that cancer survivors should aim to get at least 25-30 grams of dietary fiber daily. She also suggested they avoid particular types of UPF with little to no nutritional value, such as processed meats, sugar-laden beverages, and fast food.

The study received no commercial funding. Bonaccio, Abrams, and Meyerowitz-Katz reported no financial disclosures. Shah is principle investigator on the NUTRIVENTION trial and reported receiving research funding and/or personal fees from Celgene/BMS, Janssen, and Sanofi.

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

Diets heavy in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are associated with earlier death in cancer survivors, a new study finds — though issues with the research design suggest that the findings should be taken with a grain of salt.

The study, published on February 4 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, is among the latest to point to health hazards from eating too many foods full of preservatives, dyes, and other industrially made ingredients.

These so-called UPFs have been linked to an increased risk for cancer, but whether they have any relationship to long-term survival after cancer has been unclear.

In the new study, of 802 adults with a previous cancer diagnosis, those in the top third for UPF consumption had a 48% higher rate of death from any cause over 15 years than those in the bottom third. Similarly, heavier UPF consumers had a 57% higher rate of death from cancer.

Those excess risks were seen after adjustment for numerous variables, including age, physical activity, BMI, smoking status, and socioeconomic indicators.

“Clinicians should encourage a shift toward fresh, minimally processed foods, [and] away from heavily industrially processed products,” said lead author Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, of the Research Unit of Epidemiology and Prevention at IRCCS Neuromed in Pozzilli, Italy.

Oncologists not involved in the work said the findings support what researchers have suspected.

“UPFs have been linked to increased risk of obesity, diabetes, inflammation, cardiovascular disease, and...all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality,” said Urvi A. Shah, MD, a myeloma specialist who conducts nutrition research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “However, there was limited data on cancer-specific mortality to date until this study.”

The findings also dovetail with recommendations on cancer prevention that emphasize diets rich in plant foods and low in processed foods, particularly those loaded with sugar, starch, and fat.

The study “may make oncologists think twice before assuring patients to ‘eat whatever you want, it doesn’t really matter’ because these investigators show that it does,” said Donald I. Abrams, MD, an integrative oncologist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Health.

However, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Wollongong, Australia, was not impressed by the analysis.

He pointed to several sources of potential bias and noted that the crude results actually showed that cancer survivors with the lowest UPF consumption had a higher rate of death than the heaviest consumers.

“The story of UPFs being bad is consistent with this data, but so is the story of UPFs being fine,” said Meyerowitz-Katz, who has written about prior research on the subject.

The broad questions of whether and how UPFs might be harming human health have been gaining research interest, partly because of their ubiquity. The foods reportedly make up about 60% of the typical American diet.

There’s no universal agreement on the precise definition of “ultraprocessed,” but researchers generally use the NOVA classification system, which assigns foods into one of four groups based on the level and purpose of processing. UPFs contain ingredients not found in the standard home kitchen (such as high-fructose corn syrup) and often have artificial flavors, colors, and other additives.

Examples of UPFs include the usual “junk food,” such as candy, soda, and processed meat, but many healthy-sounding products, such as flavored yogurts and plant-based milk, also qualify.

For their study, Bonaccio and her colleagues identified 802 cancer survivors from the Moli-sani cohort study (476 women and 326 men) who completed food-frequency questionnaires an average of 8 years postdiagnosis.

Using the NOVA system, the team calculated the amount of UPF in participants’ diets as both weight and energy ratios.

Over a median follow-up of nearly 15 years, there were 281 deaths. In the lowest third of UPF consumption (4.3% mean intake by weight), there were 3.3 deaths per 100 patient-years, compared with 2.4 per 100 patient-years in the highest UPF tertile (16.7% mean intake by weight). For cancer-specific deaths, those numbers were 1.5 and 1.4, respectively.

However, after adjustment for age and total energy intake, the top UPF-intake group showed significantly higher death rates. In the final model, which adjusted for > 20 variables, the hazard ratios for the highest versus lowest UPF consumption were 1.48 (95% CI, 1.07-2.03) for all-cause mortality and 1.57 (95% CI, 1.00-2.47) for cancer mortality.

To explore potential biological mechanisms, the researchers also analyzed certain biomarkers. They found that adjustment for inflammatory markers and resting heart rate at baseline attenuated the association between UPF and all-cause deaths by nearly 40%.

The authors acknowledged some limitations of their study, including its use of self-report and potential survivor bias.

But Meyerowitz-Katz found additional weak points. For one, he said the authors “downplayed” the impact of their analysis controlling for inflammation and heart rate.

“Inflammation and heart rate are both strong markers of future cancer risk,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “In this cohort, there would be people who were already experiencing cancer recurrence, which is important to control for at baseline.”

He also highlighted a little-known but important issue in observational research called collider bias, which can create a false association between an exposure and outcome. In this study, he said, the researchers introduced “a huge potential for collider bias” by controlling for energy intake, because both UPF consumption and cancer recurrence are causally associated with energy intake.

Bonaccio called that particular critique “a fair methodological question” but defended her work.

She pointed out that study participants were long-term survivors, which reduces the chance that their calorie intake was mainly driven by active cancer or treatment side effects.

“And,” she said, “our models include a wide set of baseline covariates that capture major determinants of both mortality and dietary intake.”

For Bonaccio, the take-home message for patients remains the same: “Emphasizing simple, home-cooked meals and traditional dietary patterns might be especially beneficial during the survivorship phase.”

The two US experts agreed that overall diet quality is key, with limits on UPFs being part of that. They also noted that the average American’s diet contains substantially more UPFs than what was seen in this Italian study.

“I spend 20 minutes of my 60-minute new patient consult in integrative oncology advising patients to eat an organic, plant-based, antioxidant-rich, anti-inflammatory, real and whole-foods diet,” Abrams said.

For her part, Shah said that cancer survivors should aim to get at least 25-30 grams of dietary fiber daily. She also suggested they avoid particular types of UPF with little to no nutritional value, such as processed meats, sugar-laden beverages, and fast food.

The study received no commercial funding. Bonaccio, Abrams, and Meyerowitz-Katz reported no financial disclosures. Shah is principle investigator on the NUTRIVENTION trial and reported receiving research funding and/or personal fees from Celgene/BMS, Janssen, and Sanofi.

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

Diets heavy in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are associated with earlier death in cancer survivors, a new study finds — though issues with the research design suggest that the findings should be taken with a grain of salt.

The study, published on February 4 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, is among the latest to point to health hazards from eating too many foods full of preservatives, dyes, and other industrially made ingredients.

These so-called UPFs have been linked to an increased risk for cancer, but whether they have any relationship to long-term survival after cancer has been unclear.

In the new study, of 802 adults with a previous cancer diagnosis, those in the top third for UPF consumption had a 48% higher rate of death from any cause over 15 years than those in the bottom third. Similarly, heavier UPF consumers had a 57% higher rate of death from cancer.

Those excess risks were seen after adjustment for numerous variables, including age, physical activity, BMI, smoking status, and socioeconomic indicators.

“Clinicians should encourage a shift toward fresh, minimally processed foods, [and] away from heavily industrially processed products,” said lead author Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, of the Research Unit of Epidemiology and Prevention at IRCCS Neuromed in Pozzilli, Italy.

Oncologists not involved in the work said the findings support what researchers have suspected.

“UPFs have been linked to increased risk of obesity, diabetes, inflammation, cardiovascular disease, and...all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality,” said Urvi A. Shah, MD, a myeloma specialist who conducts nutrition research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “However, there was limited data on cancer-specific mortality to date until this study.”

The findings also dovetail with recommendations on cancer prevention that emphasize diets rich in plant foods and low in processed foods, particularly those loaded with sugar, starch, and fat.

The study “may make oncologists think twice before assuring patients to ‘eat whatever you want, it doesn’t really matter’ because these investigators show that it does,” said Donald I. Abrams, MD, an integrative oncologist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Health.

However, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Wollongong, Australia, was not impressed by the analysis.

He pointed to several sources of potential bias and noted that the crude results actually showed that cancer survivors with the lowest UPF consumption had a higher rate of death than the heaviest consumers.

“The story of UPFs being bad is consistent with this data, but so is the story of UPFs being fine,” said Meyerowitz-Katz, who has written about prior research on the subject.

The broad questions of whether and how UPFs might be harming human health have been gaining research interest, partly because of their ubiquity. The foods reportedly make up about 60% of the typical American diet.

There’s no universal agreement on the precise definition of “ultraprocessed,” but researchers generally use the NOVA classification system, which assigns foods into one of four groups based on the level and purpose of processing. UPFs contain ingredients not found in the standard home kitchen (such as high-fructose corn syrup) and often have artificial flavors, colors, and other additives.

Examples of UPFs include the usual “junk food,” such as candy, soda, and processed meat, but many healthy-sounding products, such as flavored yogurts and plant-based milk, also qualify.

For their study, Bonaccio and her colleagues identified 802 cancer survivors from the Moli-sani cohort study (476 women and 326 men) who completed food-frequency questionnaires an average of 8 years postdiagnosis.

Using the NOVA system, the team calculated the amount of UPF in participants’ diets as both weight and energy ratios.

Over a median follow-up of nearly 15 years, there were 281 deaths. In the lowest third of UPF consumption (4.3% mean intake by weight), there were 3.3 deaths per 100 patient-years, compared with 2.4 per 100 patient-years in the highest UPF tertile (16.7% mean intake by weight). For cancer-specific deaths, those numbers were 1.5 and 1.4, respectively.

However, after adjustment for age and total energy intake, the top UPF-intake group showed significantly higher death rates. In the final model, which adjusted for > 20 variables, the hazard ratios for the highest versus lowest UPF consumption were 1.48 (95% CI, 1.07-2.03) for all-cause mortality and 1.57 (95% CI, 1.00-2.47) for cancer mortality.

To explore potential biological mechanisms, the researchers also analyzed certain biomarkers. They found that adjustment for inflammatory markers and resting heart rate at baseline attenuated the association between UPF and all-cause deaths by nearly 40%.

The authors acknowledged some limitations of their study, including its use of self-report and potential survivor bias.

But Meyerowitz-Katz found additional weak points. For one, he said the authors “downplayed” the impact of their analysis controlling for inflammation and heart rate.

“Inflammation and heart rate are both strong markers of future cancer risk,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “In this cohort, there would be people who were already experiencing cancer recurrence, which is important to control for at baseline.”

He also highlighted a little-known but important issue in observational research called collider bias, which can create a false association between an exposure and outcome. In this study, he said, the researchers introduced “a huge potential for collider bias” by controlling for energy intake, because both UPF consumption and cancer recurrence are causally associated with energy intake.

Bonaccio called that particular critique “a fair methodological question” but defended her work.

She pointed out that study participants were long-term survivors, which reduces the chance that their calorie intake was mainly driven by active cancer or treatment side effects.

“And,” she said, “our models include a wide set of baseline covariates that capture major determinants of both mortality and dietary intake.”

For Bonaccio, the take-home message for patients remains the same: “Emphasizing simple, home-cooked meals and traditional dietary patterns might be especially beneficial during the survivorship phase.”

The two US experts agreed that overall diet quality is key, with limits on UPFs being part of that. They also noted that the average American’s diet contains substantially more UPFs than what was seen in this Italian study.

“I spend 20 minutes of my 60-minute new patient consult in integrative oncology advising patients to eat an organic, plant-based, antioxidant-rich, anti-inflammatory, real and whole-foods diet,” Abrams said.

For her part, Shah said that cancer survivors should aim to get at least 25-30 grams of dietary fiber daily. She also suggested they avoid particular types of UPF with little to no nutritional value, such as processed meats, sugar-laden beverages, and fast food.

The study received no commercial funding. Bonaccio, Abrams, and Meyerowitz-Katz reported no financial disclosures. Shah is principle investigator on the NUTRIVENTION trial and reported receiving research funding and/or personal fees from Celgene/BMS, Janssen, and Sanofi.

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

New research sheds light on how chronic heavy alcohol use may contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC) development and how quitting may lower the risk for precancerous colorectal adenomas.

In a large US cancer screening trial, current heavy drinkers — with an average lifetime alcohol intake of 14 or more drinks per week — had a 25% higher risk for CRC and an almost twofold higher risk for rectal cancer than light drinkers averaging less than one drink per week.

When the research team further considered drinking consistency, steady heavy drinking throughout adulthood was associated with a 91% higher risk for CRC than consistent light drinking. 

Additionally, no increased risk for CRC was found among former drinkers, and former drinkers were less likely than light drinkers to develop nonadvanced colorectal adenomas.

This analysis “adds to the growing amount of concerning literature showing that chronic heavy alcohol use can potentially contribute to colorectal cancer development,” Benjamin H. Levy III, MD, gastroenterologist and clinical associate of medicine at UChicago Medicine in Chicago, who wasn’t involved in the study, told Medscape Medical News.

The study’s co-senior author, Erikka Loftfield, PhD, MPH, also noted that the study “provides new evidence indicating that drinking cessation, compared to consistent light drinking, may lower adenoma risk.”

Current cancer prevention guidelines recommend limiting alcohol intake or ideally not drinking at all, and “our findings do not change this advice,” said Loftfield, with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland. 

The study was published online on January 26 in the journal Cancer.

Addressing a Data Gap

Alcoholic beverages are classified as carcinogenic to humans and are causally associated with CRC, Loftfield told Medscape Medical News. However, much of the evidence for this comes from cohort studies that only measure recent drinking patterns, generally among older adults, at study baseline. Fewer studies have looked at how drinking over a person’s lifetime and alcohol consumption patterns relate to colorectal adenoma and CRC risk, she explained.

To address these gaps, Loftfield and colleagues leveraged data on alcohol intake gathered as part of the NCI’s Prostate, Long, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

Average lifetime alcohol intake was calculated as drinks per week from age 18 through study baseline, and drinking patterns were further classified based on consistency and intensity over time. 

During 20 years of follow-up, 1679 incident CRC cases occurred among 88,092 study participants. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, current heavy drinkers had a higher risk for CRC than those averaging less than one drink per week (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25), with the strongest association observed for rectal cancer (HR, 1.95).

“The increase in rectal cancer risk for heavy drinkers seen in this 20-year observational study was especially concerning,” Levy told Medscape Medical News.

What About Moderate Drinking?

Perhaps counterintuitively, moderate current drinkers (those consuming an average of 7 to less than 14 drinks per week) had a lower risk for CRC (HR, 0.79), especially distal colon cancer (HR, 0.64), than light drinkers.

Loftfield said that research in rodents suggests moderate alcohol intake may reduce inflammation and lower DNA damage, but it’s possible that the observed inverse association is due to residual confounding by unmeasured or poorly measured confounders, such as socioeconomic status.

She said it’s also important to note that the inverse association of moderate alcohol intake was strongest for distal colon cancer and in the screening arm of the trial. Those in the screening arm who screened positive with flexible sigmoidoscopy had polyps removed and were referred for colonoscopy during the trial period, making screening a potential intervention as well.

“Screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy has previously been found to decrease CRC incidence, specifically distal colon cancer, in this population. Thus, it is possible that better adherence to screening among moderate drinkers over the course of follow-up contributed to this finding,” Loftfield explained.

When looking at consistency of drinking, her team found that current drinkers who were consistent heavy drinkers throughout adulthood had a higher risk for CRC than consistent light drinkers (HR, 1.91).

Separate analyses of incident colorectal adenomas were directionally consistent with the CRC findings. These analyses included 12,327 participants with a negative baseline sigmoidoscopy, among whom 812 adenomas were detected on repeat screening.

Compared with current light drinkers, former drinkers had significantly lower odds of nonadvanced adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 0.58), but no significant association was observed for advanced adenomas (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.62-1.90). The authors cautioned, however, that overall adenoma case numbers were limited, and estimates for advanced lesions were imprecise.

Educating Patients

Reached for comment, William Dahut, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, told Medscape Medical News that this “very well done, large perspective study clearly demonstrates the significant increased risk of colorectal cancer for those that are heavy drinkers.”

He noted that the nearly twofold increased risk for rectal cancer among heavy drinkers “makes biological sense because the rectum is the area of the body where the toxins produced by alcohol potentially spend the most period of time.” 

Heavy drinkers are at the highest risk, Dahut said, and “for them, screenings are particularly important.”

Even with this growing body of evidence, Levy noted that many patients in America and worldwide “have not been educated yet about the potential carcinogenic dangers of chronic alcohol use.”

Levy recommended that physicians get “accurate social histories about alcohol use” and “spend several minutes educating patients about their increased risk of cancer and liver problems from heavy alcohol use.”

Dahut encouraged health providers to tell patients that the risk for CRC from alcohol is also based on one’s lifetime alcohol consumption, “not simply what they had last weekend.”

Overall, this important research study, along with the Surgeon General’s recent publication about Alcohol and Cancer Risk, will hopefully “encourage physicians to have important conversations about alcohol reduction with their patients,” Levy said. 

The study had no commercial funding. Loftfield, Dahult, and Levy reported no relevant disclosures.

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

New research sheds light on how chronic heavy alcohol use may contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC) development and how quitting may lower the risk for precancerous colorectal adenomas.

In a large US cancer screening trial, current heavy drinkers — with an average lifetime alcohol intake of 14 or more drinks per week — had a 25% higher risk for CRC and an almost twofold higher risk for rectal cancer than light drinkers averaging less than one drink per week.

When the research team further considered drinking consistency, steady heavy drinking throughout adulthood was associated with a 91% higher risk for CRC than consistent light drinking. 

Additionally, no increased risk for CRC was found among former drinkers, and former drinkers were less likely than light drinkers to develop nonadvanced colorectal adenomas.

This analysis “adds to the growing amount of concerning literature showing that chronic heavy alcohol use can potentially contribute to colorectal cancer development,” Benjamin H. Levy III, MD, gastroenterologist and clinical associate of medicine at UChicago Medicine in Chicago, who wasn’t involved in the study, told Medscape Medical News.

The study’s co-senior author, Erikka Loftfield, PhD, MPH, also noted that the study “provides new evidence indicating that drinking cessation, compared to consistent light drinking, may lower adenoma risk.”

Current cancer prevention guidelines recommend limiting alcohol intake or ideally not drinking at all, and “our findings do not change this advice,” said Loftfield, with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland. 

The study was published online on January 26 in the journal Cancer.

Addressing a Data Gap

Alcoholic beverages are classified as carcinogenic to humans and are causally associated with CRC, Loftfield told Medscape Medical News. However, much of the evidence for this comes from cohort studies that only measure recent drinking patterns, generally among older adults, at study baseline. Fewer studies have looked at how drinking over a person’s lifetime and alcohol consumption patterns relate to colorectal adenoma and CRC risk, she explained.

To address these gaps, Loftfield and colleagues leveraged data on alcohol intake gathered as part of the NCI’s Prostate, Long, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

Average lifetime alcohol intake was calculated as drinks per week from age 18 through study baseline, and drinking patterns were further classified based on consistency and intensity over time. 

During 20 years of follow-up, 1679 incident CRC cases occurred among 88,092 study participants. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, current heavy drinkers had a higher risk for CRC than those averaging less than one drink per week (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25), with the strongest association observed for rectal cancer (HR, 1.95).

“The increase in rectal cancer risk for heavy drinkers seen in this 20-year observational study was especially concerning,” Levy told Medscape Medical News.

What About Moderate Drinking?

Perhaps counterintuitively, moderate current drinkers (those consuming an average of 7 to less than 14 drinks per week) had a lower risk for CRC (HR, 0.79), especially distal colon cancer (HR, 0.64), than light drinkers.

Loftfield said that research in rodents suggests moderate alcohol intake may reduce inflammation and lower DNA damage, but it’s possible that the observed inverse association is due to residual confounding by unmeasured or poorly measured confounders, such as socioeconomic status.

She said it’s also important to note that the inverse association of moderate alcohol intake was strongest for distal colon cancer and in the screening arm of the trial. Those in the screening arm who screened positive with flexible sigmoidoscopy had polyps removed and were referred for colonoscopy during the trial period, making screening a potential intervention as well.

“Screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy has previously been found to decrease CRC incidence, specifically distal colon cancer, in this population. Thus, it is possible that better adherence to screening among moderate drinkers over the course of follow-up contributed to this finding,” Loftfield explained.

When looking at consistency of drinking, her team found that current drinkers who were consistent heavy drinkers throughout adulthood had a higher risk for CRC than consistent light drinkers (HR, 1.91).

Separate analyses of incident colorectal adenomas were directionally consistent with the CRC findings. These analyses included 12,327 participants with a negative baseline sigmoidoscopy, among whom 812 adenomas were detected on repeat screening.

Compared with current light drinkers, former drinkers had significantly lower odds of nonadvanced adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 0.58), but no significant association was observed for advanced adenomas (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.62-1.90). The authors cautioned, however, that overall adenoma case numbers were limited, and estimates for advanced lesions were imprecise.

Educating Patients

Reached for comment, William Dahut, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, told Medscape Medical News that this “very well done, large perspective study clearly demonstrates the significant increased risk of colorectal cancer for those that are heavy drinkers.”

He noted that the nearly twofold increased risk for rectal cancer among heavy drinkers “makes biological sense because the rectum is the area of the body where the toxins produced by alcohol potentially spend the most period of time.” 

Heavy drinkers are at the highest risk, Dahut said, and “for them, screenings are particularly important.”

Even with this growing body of evidence, Levy noted that many patients in America and worldwide “have not been educated yet about the potential carcinogenic dangers of chronic alcohol use.”

Levy recommended that physicians get “accurate social histories about alcohol use” and “spend several minutes educating patients about their increased risk of cancer and liver problems from heavy alcohol use.”

Dahut encouraged health providers to tell patients that the risk for CRC from alcohol is also based on one’s lifetime alcohol consumption, “not simply what they had last weekend.”

Overall, this important research study, along with the Surgeon General’s recent publication about Alcohol and Cancer Risk, will hopefully “encourage physicians to have important conversations about alcohol reduction with their patients,” Levy said. 

The study had no commercial funding. Loftfield, Dahult, and Levy reported no relevant disclosures.

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

New research sheds light on how chronic heavy alcohol use may contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC) development and how quitting may lower the risk for precancerous colorectal adenomas.

In a large US cancer screening trial, current heavy drinkers — with an average lifetime alcohol intake of 14 or more drinks per week — had a 25% higher risk for CRC and an almost twofold higher risk for rectal cancer than light drinkers averaging less than one drink per week.

When the research team further considered drinking consistency, steady heavy drinking throughout adulthood was associated with a 91% higher risk for CRC than consistent light drinking. 

Additionally, no increased risk for CRC was found among former drinkers, and former drinkers were less likely than light drinkers to develop nonadvanced colorectal adenomas.

This analysis “adds to the growing amount of concerning literature showing that chronic heavy alcohol use can potentially contribute to colorectal cancer development,” Benjamin H. Levy III, MD, gastroenterologist and clinical associate of medicine at UChicago Medicine in Chicago, who wasn’t involved in the study, told Medscape Medical News.

The study’s co-senior author, Erikka Loftfield, PhD, MPH, also noted that the study “provides new evidence indicating that drinking cessation, compared to consistent light drinking, may lower adenoma risk.”

Current cancer prevention guidelines recommend limiting alcohol intake or ideally not drinking at all, and “our findings do not change this advice,” said Loftfield, with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland. 

The study was published online on January 26 in the journal Cancer.

Addressing a Data Gap

Alcoholic beverages are classified as carcinogenic to humans and are causally associated with CRC, Loftfield told Medscape Medical News. However, much of the evidence for this comes from cohort studies that only measure recent drinking patterns, generally among older adults, at study baseline. Fewer studies have looked at how drinking over a person’s lifetime and alcohol consumption patterns relate to colorectal adenoma and CRC risk, she explained.

To address these gaps, Loftfield and colleagues leveraged data on alcohol intake gathered as part of the NCI’s Prostate, Long, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

Average lifetime alcohol intake was calculated as drinks per week from age 18 through study baseline, and drinking patterns were further classified based on consistency and intensity over time. 

During 20 years of follow-up, 1679 incident CRC cases occurred among 88,092 study participants. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, current heavy drinkers had a higher risk for CRC than those averaging less than one drink per week (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25), with the strongest association observed for rectal cancer (HR, 1.95).

“The increase in rectal cancer risk for heavy drinkers seen in this 20-year observational study was especially concerning,” Levy told Medscape Medical News.

What About Moderate Drinking?

Perhaps counterintuitively, moderate current drinkers (those consuming an average of 7 to less than 14 drinks per week) had a lower risk for CRC (HR, 0.79), especially distal colon cancer (HR, 0.64), than light drinkers.

Loftfield said that research in rodents suggests moderate alcohol intake may reduce inflammation and lower DNA damage, but it’s possible that the observed inverse association is due to residual confounding by unmeasured or poorly measured confounders, such as socioeconomic status.

She said it’s also important to note that the inverse association of moderate alcohol intake was strongest for distal colon cancer and in the screening arm of the trial. Those in the screening arm who screened positive with flexible sigmoidoscopy had polyps removed and were referred for colonoscopy during the trial period, making screening a potential intervention as well.

“Screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy has previously been found to decrease CRC incidence, specifically distal colon cancer, in this population. Thus, it is possible that better adherence to screening among moderate drinkers over the course of follow-up contributed to this finding,” Loftfield explained.

When looking at consistency of drinking, her team found that current drinkers who were consistent heavy drinkers throughout adulthood had a higher risk for CRC than consistent light drinkers (HR, 1.91).

Separate analyses of incident colorectal adenomas were directionally consistent with the CRC findings. These analyses included 12,327 participants with a negative baseline sigmoidoscopy, among whom 812 adenomas were detected on repeat screening.

Compared with current light drinkers, former drinkers had significantly lower odds of nonadvanced adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 0.58), but no significant association was observed for advanced adenomas (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.62-1.90). The authors cautioned, however, that overall adenoma case numbers were limited, and estimates for advanced lesions were imprecise.

Educating Patients

Reached for comment, William Dahut, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, told Medscape Medical News that this “very well done, large perspective study clearly demonstrates the significant increased risk of colorectal cancer for those that are heavy drinkers.”

He noted that the nearly twofold increased risk for rectal cancer among heavy drinkers “makes biological sense because the rectum is the area of the body where the toxins produced by alcohol potentially spend the most period of time.” 

Heavy drinkers are at the highest risk, Dahut said, and “for them, screenings are particularly important.”

Even with this growing body of evidence, Levy noted that many patients in America and worldwide “have not been educated yet about the potential carcinogenic dangers of chronic alcohol use.”

Levy recommended that physicians get “accurate social histories about alcohol use” and “spend several minutes educating patients about their increased risk of cancer and liver problems from heavy alcohol use.”

Dahut encouraged health providers to tell patients that the risk for CRC from alcohol is also based on one’s lifetime alcohol consumption, “not simply what they had last weekend.”

Overall, this important research study, along with the Surgeon General’s recent publication about Alcohol and Cancer Risk, will hopefully “encourage physicians to have important conversations about alcohol reduction with their patients,” Levy said. 

The study had no commercial funding. Loftfield, Dahult, and Levy reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Insights from phase 3 trials presented at the 2025 American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting may expand treatment options for veterans with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as discussed by Dr Nicholas Burwick from University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr Burwick begins with the CLL17 trial examining continuous treatment vs fixed-duration therapy in previously untreated patients. The fixed-duration therapy showed noninferior results. Research pertaining to the veterans population in the phase 2 Benefit VA study may offer further insight on these results.

He next discusses the first study comparing the noncovalent BTKi pirtobrutinib to covalent ibrutinib in both treatment-naive patients and those with relapsed/refractory CLL. Pirtobrutinib demonstrated noninferiority in each subgroup. 

Pirtobrutinib was compared to bendamustine plus rituximab in the treatment-naive setting in the next study, showing favorable progression-free survival and a notable trend in overall survival. These two trials could lead to use of a noncovalent BTKi as frontline therapy.

Dr Burwick then turns to 6-year follow-up in the SEQUOIA trial, in which zanubrutinib showed sustained superiority over bendamustine and rituximab. He notes that acalabrutinib is currently the preferred BTKi therapy for veterans with CLL.

Finally, he discusses a study examining combination acalabrutinib and venetoclax, to which obinutuzumab was added either early or late. The rate of infections was significantly higher in the early group, an issue of particular concern in the veterans population.

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, VA Puget Sound Health Care System; Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, University of Washington, Seattle; President, AVAHO - Association of VA Hematology/Oncology

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Insights from phase 3 trials presented at the 2025 American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting may expand treatment options for veterans with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as discussed by Dr Nicholas Burwick from University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr Burwick begins with the CLL17 trial examining continuous treatment vs fixed-duration therapy in previously untreated patients. The fixed-duration therapy showed noninferior results. Research pertaining to the veterans population in the phase 2 Benefit VA study may offer further insight on these results.

He next discusses the first study comparing the noncovalent BTKi pirtobrutinib to covalent ibrutinib in both treatment-naive patients and those with relapsed/refractory CLL. Pirtobrutinib demonstrated noninferiority in each subgroup. 

Pirtobrutinib was compared to bendamustine plus rituximab in the treatment-naive setting in the next study, showing favorable progression-free survival and a notable trend in overall survival. These two trials could lead to use of a noncovalent BTKi as frontline therapy.

Dr Burwick then turns to 6-year follow-up in the SEQUOIA trial, in which zanubrutinib showed sustained superiority over bendamustine and rituximab. He notes that acalabrutinib is currently the preferred BTKi therapy for veterans with CLL.

Finally, he discusses a study examining combination acalabrutinib and venetoclax, to which obinutuzumab was added either early or late. The rate of infections was significantly higher in the early group, an issue of particular concern in the veterans population.

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, VA Puget Sound Health Care System; Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, University of Washington, Seattle; President, AVAHO - Association of VA Hematology/Oncology

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Insights from phase 3 trials presented at the 2025 American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting may expand treatment options for veterans with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as discussed by Dr Nicholas Burwick from University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr Burwick begins with the CLL17 trial examining continuous treatment vs fixed-duration therapy in previously untreated patients. The fixed-duration therapy showed noninferior results. Research pertaining to the veterans population in the phase 2 Benefit VA study may offer further insight on these results.

He next discusses the first study comparing the noncovalent BTKi pirtobrutinib to covalent ibrutinib in both treatment-naive patients and those with relapsed/refractory CLL. Pirtobrutinib demonstrated noninferiority in each subgroup. 

Pirtobrutinib was compared to bendamustine plus rituximab in the treatment-naive setting in the next study, showing favorable progression-free survival and a notable trend in overall survival. These two trials could lead to use of a noncovalent BTKi as frontline therapy.

Dr Burwick then turns to 6-year follow-up in the SEQUOIA trial, in which zanubrutinib showed sustained superiority over bendamustine and rituximab. He notes that acalabrutinib is currently the preferred BTKi therapy for veterans with CLL.

Finally, he discusses a study examining combination acalabrutinib and venetoclax, to which obinutuzumab was added either early or late. The rate of infections was significantly higher in the early group, an issue of particular concern in the veterans population.

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, VA Puget Sound Health Care System; Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, University of Washington, Seattle; President, AVAHO - Association of VA Hematology/Oncology

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

TOPLINE:

Spleen volume larger than the 99th percentile was associated with an 11-fold increased risk for hematologic cancer compared with normal volumes, with 5-year risks as high as 46% among men aged 70 years or older. Significant risks for cirrhosis and liver cancer were also seen.

METHODOLOGY:

• Splenomegaly is often detected incidentally during imaging, but guidelines vary as to the threshold that should prompt evaluation — ranging from a spleen length of 120 mm to 150 mm. However, up to 21% of healthy individuals have spleen lengths > 120 mm, which could lead to unnecessary follow-up of low-risk patients.
• Researchers used data from two general population cohorts to evaluate the relative and absolute risks for hematologic cancer and liver disease (two common causes of spleen enlargement) among individuals with incidentally detected splenomegaly. They included 8459 Danish adults (57% female; median age, 61 years) and 38,607 UK adults (51.9% female; median age, 65 years) who underwent CT or MRI scans as part of study procedures.
• Spleen length and volume measurements were available from the Danish cohort, while only spleen volume was available from the UK group.
• Participants were followed for a median of 5 years after imaging to assess the incidence of hematologic cancers (both cohorts) and cirrhosis and liver cancer (UK cohort only). Hazard ratios were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, alcohol consumption, comorbidities, and C-reactive protein levels.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the Danish cohort, the relative risk for any hematologic cancer was significantly increased among individuals with spleen lengths above the 99th percentile (≥ 135 mm) compared with those with spleen lengths in the 26th-74th percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 5.11; P < .001). Among individuals with a spleen length ≥ 140 mm, absolute 5-year risks reached 23% for men aged 70 years or older and 12% for women in that age group.
• Risks were even more pronounced for Danish adults with a spleen volume above the 99th percentile — > 433 mL. Relative to the 26th-74th percentile, their risk for any hematologic cancer was 11-fold higher (HR, 11.08; P < .001). Among people with a spleen volume ≥ 500 mL, 5-year risks reached 46% for men aged 70 years or older and 27% for women in that age group.
• Findings were similar in the UK cohort. Among individuals with a spleen volume above the 99th percentile (> 386 mL), the risk for hematologic cancer increased nearly 12-fold (HR, 11.82; P < .001). With a spleen volume ≥ 500 mL, 5-year risks reached 21% for men aged 70 years or older and 18% for women in that age group. Relative risks were also elevated — by 1.55-2.94 — among individuals in the 75th-99th percentile (199 mL-386 mL).
• The risks for liver disease began to rise substantially at a spleen volume ≥ 400 mL. Absolute 5-year risks for cirrhosis reached 10.8% for men and 9.3% for women aged 70 years or older with a spleen volume ≥ 500 mL. For liver cancer, 5-year risks reached 3.2% and 1.2% for men and women in that age group with a spleen volume ≥ 400 mL.

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined risk of hematologic cancers by spleen length or volume in incidentally detected splenomegaly,” the authors of the study wrote. “Risk was moderately increased at spleen length of 130-139 mm or spleen volume of 400-499 mL, where diagnostic workup may be considered, and more pronounced at spleen length of 140 mm or greater or spleen volume of 500 mL or greater, supporting that diagnostic workup may likely be relevant.”

They stressed, however, that the study participants were asymptomatic, and the underlying reason for imaging should always be considered.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jens Helby, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Boserup Foundation, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, and Sanofi A/S. Helby reported having financial relationships with Sanofi and Disc Medicine. Additional disclosures are available in the full article.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Spleen volume larger than the 99th percentile was associated with an 11-fold increased risk for hematologic cancer compared with normal volumes, with 5-year risks as high as 46% among men aged 70 years or older. Significant risks for cirrhosis and liver cancer were also seen.

METHODOLOGY:

• Splenomegaly is often detected incidentally during imaging, but guidelines vary as to the threshold that should prompt evaluation — ranging from a spleen length of 120 mm to 150 mm. However, up to 21% of healthy individuals have spleen lengths > 120 mm, which could lead to unnecessary follow-up of low-risk patients.
• Researchers used data from two general population cohorts to evaluate the relative and absolute risks for hematologic cancer and liver disease (two common causes of spleen enlargement) among individuals with incidentally detected splenomegaly. They included 8459 Danish adults (57% female; median age, 61 years) and 38,607 UK adults (51.9% female; median age, 65 years) who underwent CT or MRI scans as part of study procedures.
• Spleen length and volume measurements were available from the Danish cohort, while only spleen volume was available from the UK group.
• Participants were followed for a median of 5 years after imaging to assess the incidence of hematologic cancers (both cohorts) and cirrhosis and liver cancer (UK cohort only). Hazard ratios were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, alcohol consumption, comorbidities, and C-reactive protein levels.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the Danish cohort, the relative risk for any hematologic cancer was significantly increased among individuals with spleen lengths above the 99th percentile (≥ 135 mm) compared with those with spleen lengths in the 26th-74th percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 5.11; P < .001). Among individuals with a spleen length ≥ 140 mm, absolute 5-year risks reached 23% for men aged 70 years or older and 12% for women in that age group.
• Risks were even more pronounced for Danish adults with a spleen volume above the 99th percentile — > 433 mL. Relative to the 26th-74th percentile, their risk for any hematologic cancer was 11-fold higher (HR, 11.08; P < .001). Among people with a spleen volume ≥ 500 mL, 5-year risks reached 46% for men aged 70 years or older and 27% for women in that age group.
• Findings were similar in the UK cohort. Among individuals with a spleen volume above the 99th percentile (> 386 mL), the risk for hematologic cancer increased nearly 12-fold (HR, 11.82; P < .001). With a spleen volume ≥ 500 mL, 5-year risks reached 21% for men aged 70 years or older and 18% for women in that age group. Relative risks were also elevated — by 1.55-2.94 — among individuals in the 75th-99th percentile (199 mL-386 mL).
• The risks for liver disease began to rise substantially at a spleen volume ≥ 400 mL. Absolute 5-year risks for cirrhosis reached 10.8% for men and 9.3% for women aged 70 years or older with a spleen volume ≥ 500 mL. For liver cancer, 5-year risks reached 3.2% and 1.2% for men and women in that age group with a spleen volume ≥ 400 mL.

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined risk of hematologic cancers by spleen length or volume in incidentally detected splenomegaly,” the authors of the study wrote. “Risk was moderately increased at spleen length of 130-139 mm or spleen volume of 400-499 mL, where diagnostic workup may be considered, and more pronounced at spleen length of 140 mm or greater or spleen volume of 500 mL or greater, supporting that diagnostic workup may likely be relevant.”

They stressed, however, that the study participants were asymptomatic, and the underlying reason for imaging should always be considered.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jens Helby, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Boserup Foundation, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, and Sanofi A/S. Helby reported having financial relationships with Sanofi and Disc Medicine. Additional disclosures are available in the full article.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Spleen volume larger than the 99th percentile was associated with an 11-fold increased risk for hematologic cancer compared with normal volumes, with 5-year risks as high as 46% among men aged 70 years or older. Significant risks for cirrhosis and liver cancer were also seen.

METHODOLOGY:

• Splenomegaly is often detected incidentally during imaging, but guidelines vary as to the threshold that should prompt evaluation — ranging from a spleen length of 120 mm to 150 mm. However, up to 21% of healthy individuals have spleen lengths > 120 mm, which could lead to unnecessary follow-up of low-risk patients.
• Researchers used data from two general population cohorts to evaluate the relative and absolute risks for hematologic cancer and liver disease (two common causes of spleen enlargement) among individuals with incidentally detected splenomegaly. They included 8459 Danish adults (57% female; median age, 61 years) and 38,607 UK adults (51.9% female; median age, 65 years) who underwent CT or MRI scans as part of study procedures.
• Spleen length and volume measurements were available from the Danish cohort, while only spleen volume was available from the UK group.
• Participants were followed for a median of 5 years after imaging to assess the incidence of hematologic cancers (both cohorts) and cirrhosis and liver cancer (UK cohort only). Hazard ratios were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, alcohol consumption, comorbidities, and C-reactive protein levels.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the Danish cohort, the relative risk for any hematologic cancer was significantly increased among individuals with spleen lengths above the 99th percentile (≥ 135 mm) compared with those with spleen lengths in the 26th-74th percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 5.11; P < .001). Among individuals with a spleen length ≥ 140 mm, absolute 5-year risks reached 23% for men aged 70 years or older and 12% for women in that age group.
• Risks were even more pronounced for Danish adults with a spleen volume above the 99th percentile — > 433 mL. Relative to the 26th-74th percentile, their risk for any hematologic cancer was 11-fold higher (HR, 11.08; P < .001). Among people with a spleen volume ≥ 500 mL, 5-year risks reached 46% for men aged 70 years or older and 27% for women in that age group.
• Findings were similar in the UK cohort. Among individuals with a spleen volume above the 99th percentile (> 386 mL), the risk for hematologic cancer increased nearly 12-fold (HR, 11.82; P < .001). With a spleen volume ≥ 500 mL, 5-year risks reached 21% for men aged 70 years or older and 18% for women in that age group. Relative risks were also elevated — by 1.55-2.94 — among individuals in the 75th-99th percentile (199 mL-386 mL).
• The risks for liver disease began to rise substantially at a spleen volume ≥ 400 mL. Absolute 5-year risks for cirrhosis reached 10.8% for men and 9.3% for women aged 70 years or older with a spleen volume ≥ 500 mL. For liver cancer, 5-year risks reached 3.2% and 1.2% for men and women in that age group with a spleen volume ≥ 400 mL.

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined risk of hematologic cancers by spleen length or volume in incidentally detected splenomegaly,” the authors of the study wrote. “Risk was moderately increased at spleen length of 130-139 mm or spleen volume of 400-499 mL, where diagnostic workup may be considered, and more pronounced at spleen length of 140 mm or greater or spleen volume of 500 mL or greater, supporting that diagnostic workup may likely be relevant.”

They stressed, however, that the study participants were asymptomatic, and the underlying reason for imaging should always be considered.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jens Helby, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Boserup Foundation, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, and Sanofi A/S. Helby reported having financial relationships with Sanofi and Disc Medicine. Additional disclosures are available in the full article.

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

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