User login
Does Screening at 40-49 Years Boost Breast Cancer Survival?
The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.
Overdiagnosis Challenged
Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.
“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization.
To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them.
“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.
Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths).
Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%).
The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).
Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.
Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”
Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit
The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.
Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.
The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.
Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.
It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.
Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years.
The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine.
Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.
Overdiagnosis Challenged
Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.
“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization.
To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them.
“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.
Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths).
Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%).
The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).
Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.
Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”
Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit
The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.
Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.
The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.
Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.
It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.
Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years.
The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine.
Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.
Overdiagnosis Challenged
Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.
“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization.
To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them.
“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.
Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths).
Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%).
The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).
Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.
Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”
Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit
The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.
Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.
The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.
Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.
It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.
Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years.
The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine.
Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM FMF 2024
Inside the Patient-Oncologist Bond: Why It’s Often So Strong
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Is 1-Week Radiotherapy Safe for Breast Cancer?
TOPLINE:
Most patients also reported that the reduced treatment time was a major benefit of the 1-week radiotherapy schedule.
METHODOLOGY:
- In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, international and national guidelines recommended adopting a 1-week ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy schedule for patients with node-negative breast cancer. Subsequently, a phase 3 trial demonstrated that a 1-week regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions led to similar breast cancer outcomes compared with a standard moderately hypofractionated regimen.
- In this study, researchers wanted to assess real world toxicities following ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy and enrolled 135 consecutive patients who received 1-week ultrahypofractionated adjuvant radiation of 26 Gy in five fractions from March to August 2020 at three centers in Ireland, with 33 patients (25%) receiving a sequential boost.
- Researchers recorded patient-reported outcomes on breast pain, swelling, firmness, and hypersensitivity at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Virtual consultations without video occurred at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and video consultations were offered at 1 year for a physician-led breast evaluation.
- Researchers assessed patient perspectives on this new schedule and telehealth workflows using questionnaires.
- Overall, 90% of patients completed the 1-year assessment plus another assessment. The primary endpoint was the worst toxicity reported at each time point.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 76% of patients reported no or mild toxicities at 3 and 6 months, and 82% reported no or mild toxicities 12 months.
- At 1 year, 20 patients (17%) reported moderate toxicity, most commonly breast pain, and only two patients (2%) reported marked toxicities, including breast firmness and skin changes.
- Researchers found no difference in toxicities between patients who received only 26 Gy in five fractions and those who received an additional sequential boost.
- Most patients reported reduced treatment time (78.6%) and infection control (59%) as major benefits of the 1-week radiotherapy regimen. Patients also reported high satisfaction with the use of telehealth, with 97.3% feeling well-informed about their diagnosis, 88% feeling well-informed about treatment side effects, and 94% feeling supported by the medical team. However, only 27% agreed to video consultations for breast inspections at 1 year.
IN PRACTICE:
“Ultrahypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy leads to acceptable late toxicity rates at 1 year even when followed by a hypofractionated tumour bed boost,” the authors wrote. “Patient satisfaction with ultrahypofractionated treatment and virtual consultations without video was high.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jill Nicholson, MBBS, MRCP, FFFRRCSI, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The short follow-up period might not capture all late toxicities. Variability in patient-reported outcomes could affect consistency. The range in boost received (four to eight fractions) could have influenced patients’ experiences.
DISCLOSURES:
Nicholson received funding from the St. Luke’s Institute of Cancer Research, Dublin, Ireland. No other relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most patients also reported that the reduced treatment time was a major benefit of the 1-week radiotherapy schedule.
METHODOLOGY:
- In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, international and national guidelines recommended adopting a 1-week ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy schedule for patients with node-negative breast cancer. Subsequently, a phase 3 trial demonstrated that a 1-week regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions led to similar breast cancer outcomes compared with a standard moderately hypofractionated regimen.
- In this study, researchers wanted to assess real world toxicities following ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy and enrolled 135 consecutive patients who received 1-week ultrahypofractionated adjuvant radiation of 26 Gy in five fractions from March to August 2020 at three centers in Ireland, with 33 patients (25%) receiving a sequential boost.
- Researchers recorded patient-reported outcomes on breast pain, swelling, firmness, and hypersensitivity at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Virtual consultations without video occurred at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and video consultations were offered at 1 year for a physician-led breast evaluation.
- Researchers assessed patient perspectives on this new schedule and telehealth workflows using questionnaires.
- Overall, 90% of patients completed the 1-year assessment plus another assessment. The primary endpoint was the worst toxicity reported at each time point.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 76% of patients reported no or mild toxicities at 3 and 6 months, and 82% reported no or mild toxicities 12 months.
- At 1 year, 20 patients (17%) reported moderate toxicity, most commonly breast pain, and only two patients (2%) reported marked toxicities, including breast firmness and skin changes.
- Researchers found no difference in toxicities between patients who received only 26 Gy in five fractions and those who received an additional sequential boost.
- Most patients reported reduced treatment time (78.6%) and infection control (59%) as major benefits of the 1-week radiotherapy regimen. Patients also reported high satisfaction with the use of telehealth, with 97.3% feeling well-informed about their diagnosis, 88% feeling well-informed about treatment side effects, and 94% feeling supported by the medical team. However, only 27% agreed to video consultations for breast inspections at 1 year.
IN PRACTICE:
“Ultrahypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy leads to acceptable late toxicity rates at 1 year even when followed by a hypofractionated tumour bed boost,” the authors wrote. “Patient satisfaction with ultrahypofractionated treatment and virtual consultations without video was high.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jill Nicholson, MBBS, MRCP, FFFRRCSI, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The short follow-up period might not capture all late toxicities. Variability in patient-reported outcomes could affect consistency. The range in boost received (four to eight fractions) could have influenced patients’ experiences.
DISCLOSURES:
Nicholson received funding from the St. Luke’s Institute of Cancer Research, Dublin, Ireland. No other relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most patients also reported that the reduced treatment time was a major benefit of the 1-week radiotherapy schedule.
METHODOLOGY:
- In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, international and national guidelines recommended adopting a 1-week ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy schedule for patients with node-negative breast cancer. Subsequently, a phase 3 trial demonstrated that a 1-week regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions led to similar breast cancer outcomes compared with a standard moderately hypofractionated regimen.
- In this study, researchers wanted to assess real world toxicities following ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy and enrolled 135 consecutive patients who received 1-week ultrahypofractionated adjuvant radiation of 26 Gy in five fractions from March to August 2020 at three centers in Ireland, with 33 patients (25%) receiving a sequential boost.
- Researchers recorded patient-reported outcomes on breast pain, swelling, firmness, and hypersensitivity at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Virtual consultations without video occurred at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and video consultations were offered at 1 year for a physician-led breast evaluation.
- Researchers assessed patient perspectives on this new schedule and telehealth workflows using questionnaires.
- Overall, 90% of patients completed the 1-year assessment plus another assessment. The primary endpoint was the worst toxicity reported at each time point.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 76% of patients reported no or mild toxicities at 3 and 6 months, and 82% reported no or mild toxicities 12 months.
- At 1 year, 20 patients (17%) reported moderate toxicity, most commonly breast pain, and only two patients (2%) reported marked toxicities, including breast firmness and skin changes.
- Researchers found no difference in toxicities between patients who received only 26 Gy in five fractions and those who received an additional sequential boost.
- Most patients reported reduced treatment time (78.6%) and infection control (59%) as major benefits of the 1-week radiotherapy regimen. Patients also reported high satisfaction with the use of telehealth, with 97.3% feeling well-informed about their diagnosis, 88% feeling well-informed about treatment side effects, and 94% feeling supported by the medical team. However, only 27% agreed to video consultations for breast inspections at 1 year.
IN PRACTICE:
“Ultrahypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy leads to acceptable late toxicity rates at 1 year even when followed by a hypofractionated tumour bed boost,” the authors wrote. “Patient satisfaction with ultrahypofractionated treatment and virtual consultations without video was high.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jill Nicholson, MBBS, MRCP, FFFRRCSI, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The short follow-up period might not capture all late toxicities. Variability in patient-reported outcomes could affect consistency. The range in boost received (four to eight fractions) could have influenced patients’ experiences.
DISCLOSURES:
Nicholson received funding from the St. Luke’s Institute of Cancer Research, Dublin, Ireland. No other relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Diet Matters in Prostate Cancer, but It’s Complicated
Recent studies have shown that ultralow-carbohydrate diets, weight loss diets, supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids, pro- and anti-inflammatory diets, fasting, and even tea drinking may affect prostate cancer risk or risk for progression.
In October, a cohort study involving about 900 men under active surveillance for early stage prostate cancers found that those who reported eating a diet that adhered closely to the US government’s recommendations as indicated by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) saw a lower risk for progression at a median 6.5 months follow-up.
These findings follow results from an observational study, published in May, that followed about 2000 men with locally advanced prostate tumors. Men consuming a primarily plant-based diet (one closely adhering to the plant-based diet index) had less likelihood of progression over a median 6.5 years than those consuming diets low in plant-based foods.
“There is an increasing body of literature that says your diet matters,” said urologist Stephen J. Freedland, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle. “At the same time, there are a lot of things that could explain these associations. People who can afford lots of plant-based foods tend to have higher socioeconomic status, for example.”
What’s needed, Freedland said, are more randomized trials to test the hypotheses emerging from the longitudinal cohort studies. “That’s where I’m going with my own research,” he said. “I’d like to look at a study like [one of these] and design a trial. Let’s say we get half of patients to eat according to the healthy eating index, while half eat whatever they want. Can dietary modification change which genes are turned on and off in a tumor, as a start?”
Oncologist and Nutritionist Collaborate on Multiple Studies
Nutritionist Pao-Hwa Lin, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, has been working for several years with Freedland on trials of nutrition interventions. A longtime researcher of chronic disease and diet, she first collaborated with Freedland on a study, published in 2019, that looked at whether insulin could be driven down with diet and exercise in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy.
Not only are high levels of insulin a known contributor to prostate cancer growth, Lin said, but “insulin resistance is a very common side effect of hormone therapy. And we saw that the low carb diet was very helpful for that.” The finding led Freedland and Lin to design further trials investigating carbohydrate restriction in people with prostate cancer.
Lin said randomized trials tend to be smaller and shorter in duration than the observational cohort studies because “interventions like these can be hard to maintain, and recruitment can be hard to sustain. A very well controlled and intensive nutrition intervention is not going to be super long.” Short trial durations also mean that prostate cancer progression can be difficult to capture. Risk for progression has to be measured using surrogate markers, such as the doubling time for prostate-specific antigen (PSA).
In 2020, Freedland and Lin published results from a pilot study of 57 men who had been treated with surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer but had a PSA recurrence and were randomized to an ultralow-carbohydrate diet or no restrictions for 6 months. The investigators saw that PSA doubling times, an intermediate measure of tumor growth rate, were slower among those consuming the low-carb diet.
Currently they are wrapping up a trial that randomizes men who have been scheduled for radical prostatectomy to daily supplementation with walnuts, a natural source of polyphenols and omega-3 acids. This time, the aim is to determine whether gene expression in tumors changes in response to supplementation.
The researchers are also recruiting for a study in men being treated for metastatic prostate cancer. This study randomizes patients to a fasting-mimicking diet, which is a type of intermittent fasting, or no dietary restrictions for 6 months.
Developed by biologist Valter Longo, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, the fasting-mimicking diet has been shown to boost treatment effects in women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. In 2023, Longo and his colleagues published results from a small pilot study of the same diet in men with prostate cancer, reporting some positive metabolic findings.
Longo, who is consulting on Lin and Freedland’s trial, “has proven that the diet is helpful in treatment outcomes for breast cancer. So we connected and decided to test it and see if it’s helpful in prostate cancer as well.”
More Than One Approach Likely to Work
Though Lin and Freedland have focused most of their investigations on carbohydrate restriction, neither dismisses the potential for other dietary approaches to show benefit.
“There are two main schools of thought in terms of the relationship between diet and prostate cancer,” Lin said. “One is the insulin angle, and that’s what we hypothesized when we first tested the low-carb diet. The other is the inflammation angle.”
Studies have shown greater adherence to the HEI — a diet quality indicator that favors grains, fruits, dairy, vegetables, beans, and seafood — or the plant-based diet index to be associated with lower biomarkers of inflammation, she noted.
Insulin resistance, Lin explained, “is also highly related to inflammation.” (Several of the diets being investigated in prostate cancer were originally studied in diabetes.)
Moreover, weight loss caused by low-carb diets — or other healthy diets — can have a positive effect on insulin resistance independent of diet composition. “So it is a very complicated picture — and that doesn’t exclude other pathways that could also be contributing,” she said.
On the surface, a low-carb diet that is heavy in eggs, cheeses, and meats would seem to have little in common with the HEI or a plant-based diet. But Freedland noted that there are commonalities among the approaches being studied. “No one’s promoting eating a lot of simple sugars. No one’s saying eat a lot of processed foods. All of these diets emphasize whole, natural foods,” he said.
Lin hopes that she and Freedland will one day be able to test a diet that is both lower carb and anti-inflammatory in men with prostate cancer. “Why not combine the approaches, have all the good features together?” she asked.
But Freeland pointed out and explained why most clinicians don’t make dietary recommendations to their newly diagnosed patients.
“A new prostate cancer patient already gets easily an hour discussion of treatment options, of pros and cons. Patients often become overwhelmed. And then to extend it further to talk about diet, they’ll end up even more overwhelmed.” Moreover, he said, current evidence offers doctors few take-home messages to deliver besides avoiding sugar and processed foods.
Multiple dietary approaches are likely to prove helpful in prostate cancer, and when the evidence for them is better established, patients and their doctors will want to consider lifestyle factors in choosing one. The best diet will depend on a patient’s philosophy, tastes, and willingness to follow it, he concluded.
“At the end of the day I’m not rooting for one diet or another. I just want to get the answers.”
Lin disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Freedland disclosed serving as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Astellas, and Pfizer and as a consultant for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Sumitomo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Recent studies have shown that ultralow-carbohydrate diets, weight loss diets, supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids, pro- and anti-inflammatory diets, fasting, and even tea drinking may affect prostate cancer risk or risk for progression.
In October, a cohort study involving about 900 men under active surveillance for early stage prostate cancers found that those who reported eating a diet that adhered closely to the US government’s recommendations as indicated by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) saw a lower risk for progression at a median 6.5 months follow-up.
These findings follow results from an observational study, published in May, that followed about 2000 men with locally advanced prostate tumors. Men consuming a primarily plant-based diet (one closely adhering to the plant-based diet index) had less likelihood of progression over a median 6.5 years than those consuming diets low in plant-based foods.
“There is an increasing body of literature that says your diet matters,” said urologist Stephen J. Freedland, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle. “At the same time, there are a lot of things that could explain these associations. People who can afford lots of plant-based foods tend to have higher socioeconomic status, for example.”
What’s needed, Freedland said, are more randomized trials to test the hypotheses emerging from the longitudinal cohort studies. “That’s where I’m going with my own research,” he said. “I’d like to look at a study like [one of these] and design a trial. Let’s say we get half of patients to eat according to the healthy eating index, while half eat whatever they want. Can dietary modification change which genes are turned on and off in a tumor, as a start?”
Oncologist and Nutritionist Collaborate on Multiple Studies
Nutritionist Pao-Hwa Lin, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, has been working for several years with Freedland on trials of nutrition interventions. A longtime researcher of chronic disease and diet, she first collaborated with Freedland on a study, published in 2019, that looked at whether insulin could be driven down with diet and exercise in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy.
Not only are high levels of insulin a known contributor to prostate cancer growth, Lin said, but “insulin resistance is a very common side effect of hormone therapy. And we saw that the low carb diet was very helpful for that.” The finding led Freedland and Lin to design further trials investigating carbohydrate restriction in people with prostate cancer.
Lin said randomized trials tend to be smaller and shorter in duration than the observational cohort studies because “interventions like these can be hard to maintain, and recruitment can be hard to sustain. A very well controlled and intensive nutrition intervention is not going to be super long.” Short trial durations also mean that prostate cancer progression can be difficult to capture. Risk for progression has to be measured using surrogate markers, such as the doubling time for prostate-specific antigen (PSA).
In 2020, Freedland and Lin published results from a pilot study of 57 men who had been treated with surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer but had a PSA recurrence and were randomized to an ultralow-carbohydrate diet or no restrictions for 6 months. The investigators saw that PSA doubling times, an intermediate measure of tumor growth rate, were slower among those consuming the low-carb diet.
Currently they are wrapping up a trial that randomizes men who have been scheduled for radical prostatectomy to daily supplementation with walnuts, a natural source of polyphenols and omega-3 acids. This time, the aim is to determine whether gene expression in tumors changes in response to supplementation.
The researchers are also recruiting for a study in men being treated for metastatic prostate cancer. This study randomizes patients to a fasting-mimicking diet, which is a type of intermittent fasting, or no dietary restrictions for 6 months.
Developed by biologist Valter Longo, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, the fasting-mimicking diet has been shown to boost treatment effects in women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. In 2023, Longo and his colleagues published results from a small pilot study of the same diet in men with prostate cancer, reporting some positive metabolic findings.
Longo, who is consulting on Lin and Freedland’s trial, “has proven that the diet is helpful in treatment outcomes for breast cancer. So we connected and decided to test it and see if it’s helpful in prostate cancer as well.”
More Than One Approach Likely to Work
Though Lin and Freedland have focused most of their investigations on carbohydrate restriction, neither dismisses the potential for other dietary approaches to show benefit.
“There are two main schools of thought in terms of the relationship between diet and prostate cancer,” Lin said. “One is the insulin angle, and that’s what we hypothesized when we first tested the low-carb diet. The other is the inflammation angle.”
Studies have shown greater adherence to the HEI — a diet quality indicator that favors grains, fruits, dairy, vegetables, beans, and seafood — or the plant-based diet index to be associated with lower biomarkers of inflammation, she noted.
Insulin resistance, Lin explained, “is also highly related to inflammation.” (Several of the diets being investigated in prostate cancer were originally studied in diabetes.)
Moreover, weight loss caused by low-carb diets — or other healthy diets — can have a positive effect on insulin resistance independent of diet composition. “So it is a very complicated picture — and that doesn’t exclude other pathways that could also be contributing,” she said.
On the surface, a low-carb diet that is heavy in eggs, cheeses, and meats would seem to have little in common with the HEI or a plant-based diet. But Freedland noted that there are commonalities among the approaches being studied. “No one’s promoting eating a lot of simple sugars. No one’s saying eat a lot of processed foods. All of these diets emphasize whole, natural foods,” he said.
Lin hopes that she and Freedland will one day be able to test a diet that is both lower carb and anti-inflammatory in men with prostate cancer. “Why not combine the approaches, have all the good features together?” she asked.
But Freeland pointed out and explained why most clinicians don’t make dietary recommendations to their newly diagnosed patients.
“A new prostate cancer patient already gets easily an hour discussion of treatment options, of pros and cons. Patients often become overwhelmed. And then to extend it further to talk about diet, they’ll end up even more overwhelmed.” Moreover, he said, current evidence offers doctors few take-home messages to deliver besides avoiding sugar and processed foods.
Multiple dietary approaches are likely to prove helpful in prostate cancer, and when the evidence for them is better established, patients and their doctors will want to consider lifestyle factors in choosing one. The best diet will depend on a patient’s philosophy, tastes, and willingness to follow it, he concluded.
“At the end of the day I’m not rooting for one diet or another. I just want to get the answers.”
Lin disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Freedland disclosed serving as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Astellas, and Pfizer and as a consultant for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Sumitomo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Recent studies have shown that ultralow-carbohydrate diets, weight loss diets, supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids, pro- and anti-inflammatory diets, fasting, and even tea drinking may affect prostate cancer risk or risk for progression.
In October, a cohort study involving about 900 men under active surveillance for early stage prostate cancers found that those who reported eating a diet that adhered closely to the US government’s recommendations as indicated by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) saw a lower risk for progression at a median 6.5 months follow-up.
These findings follow results from an observational study, published in May, that followed about 2000 men with locally advanced prostate tumors. Men consuming a primarily plant-based diet (one closely adhering to the plant-based diet index) had less likelihood of progression over a median 6.5 years than those consuming diets low in plant-based foods.
“There is an increasing body of literature that says your diet matters,” said urologist Stephen J. Freedland, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle. “At the same time, there are a lot of things that could explain these associations. People who can afford lots of plant-based foods tend to have higher socioeconomic status, for example.”
What’s needed, Freedland said, are more randomized trials to test the hypotheses emerging from the longitudinal cohort studies. “That’s where I’m going with my own research,” he said. “I’d like to look at a study like [one of these] and design a trial. Let’s say we get half of patients to eat according to the healthy eating index, while half eat whatever they want. Can dietary modification change which genes are turned on and off in a tumor, as a start?”
Oncologist and Nutritionist Collaborate on Multiple Studies
Nutritionist Pao-Hwa Lin, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, has been working for several years with Freedland on trials of nutrition interventions. A longtime researcher of chronic disease and diet, she first collaborated with Freedland on a study, published in 2019, that looked at whether insulin could be driven down with diet and exercise in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy.
Not only are high levels of insulin a known contributor to prostate cancer growth, Lin said, but “insulin resistance is a very common side effect of hormone therapy. And we saw that the low carb diet was very helpful for that.” The finding led Freedland and Lin to design further trials investigating carbohydrate restriction in people with prostate cancer.
Lin said randomized trials tend to be smaller and shorter in duration than the observational cohort studies because “interventions like these can be hard to maintain, and recruitment can be hard to sustain. A very well controlled and intensive nutrition intervention is not going to be super long.” Short trial durations also mean that prostate cancer progression can be difficult to capture. Risk for progression has to be measured using surrogate markers, such as the doubling time for prostate-specific antigen (PSA).
In 2020, Freedland and Lin published results from a pilot study of 57 men who had been treated with surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer but had a PSA recurrence and were randomized to an ultralow-carbohydrate diet or no restrictions for 6 months. The investigators saw that PSA doubling times, an intermediate measure of tumor growth rate, were slower among those consuming the low-carb diet.
Currently they are wrapping up a trial that randomizes men who have been scheduled for radical prostatectomy to daily supplementation with walnuts, a natural source of polyphenols and omega-3 acids. This time, the aim is to determine whether gene expression in tumors changes in response to supplementation.
The researchers are also recruiting for a study in men being treated for metastatic prostate cancer. This study randomizes patients to a fasting-mimicking diet, which is a type of intermittent fasting, or no dietary restrictions for 6 months.
Developed by biologist Valter Longo, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, the fasting-mimicking diet has been shown to boost treatment effects in women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. In 2023, Longo and his colleagues published results from a small pilot study of the same diet in men with prostate cancer, reporting some positive metabolic findings.
Longo, who is consulting on Lin and Freedland’s trial, “has proven that the diet is helpful in treatment outcomes for breast cancer. So we connected and decided to test it and see if it’s helpful in prostate cancer as well.”
More Than One Approach Likely to Work
Though Lin and Freedland have focused most of their investigations on carbohydrate restriction, neither dismisses the potential for other dietary approaches to show benefit.
“There are two main schools of thought in terms of the relationship between diet and prostate cancer,” Lin said. “One is the insulin angle, and that’s what we hypothesized when we first tested the low-carb diet. The other is the inflammation angle.”
Studies have shown greater adherence to the HEI — a diet quality indicator that favors grains, fruits, dairy, vegetables, beans, and seafood — or the plant-based diet index to be associated with lower biomarkers of inflammation, she noted.
Insulin resistance, Lin explained, “is also highly related to inflammation.” (Several of the diets being investigated in prostate cancer were originally studied in diabetes.)
Moreover, weight loss caused by low-carb diets — or other healthy diets — can have a positive effect on insulin resistance independent of diet composition. “So it is a very complicated picture — and that doesn’t exclude other pathways that could also be contributing,” she said.
On the surface, a low-carb diet that is heavy in eggs, cheeses, and meats would seem to have little in common with the HEI or a plant-based diet. But Freedland noted that there are commonalities among the approaches being studied. “No one’s promoting eating a lot of simple sugars. No one’s saying eat a lot of processed foods. All of these diets emphasize whole, natural foods,” he said.
Lin hopes that she and Freedland will one day be able to test a diet that is both lower carb and anti-inflammatory in men with prostate cancer. “Why not combine the approaches, have all the good features together?” she asked.
But Freeland pointed out and explained why most clinicians don’t make dietary recommendations to their newly diagnosed patients.
“A new prostate cancer patient already gets easily an hour discussion of treatment options, of pros and cons. Patients often become overwhelmed. And then to extend it further to talk about diet, they’ll end up even more overwhelmed.” Moreover, he said, current evidence offers doctors few take-home messages to deliver besides avoiding sugar and processed foods.
Multiple dietary approaches are likely to prove helpful in prostate cancer, and when the evidence for them is better established, patients and their doctors will want to consider lifestyle factors in choosing one. The best diet will depend on a patient’s philosophy, tastes, and willingness to follow it, he concluded.
“At the end of the day I’m not rooting for one diet or another. I just want to get the answers.”
Lin disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Freedland disclosed serving as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Astellas, and Pfizer and as a consultant for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Sumitomo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Higher Early-Onset CRC Mortality Seen in Racial, Ethnic Minorities
TOPLINE:
The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.
METHODOLOGY:
- US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
- A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
- Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
- Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.
TAKEAWAY:
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
- Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
- Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
- Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).
IN PRACTICE:
“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.
METHODOLOGY:
- US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
- A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
- Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
- Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.
TAKEAWAY:
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
- Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
- Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
- Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).
IN PRACTICE:
“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.
METHODOLOGY:
- US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
- A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
- Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
- Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.
TAKEAWAY:
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
- Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
- Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
- Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).
IN PRACTICE:
“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ASH 2024 Myeloma Studies: My Top 10 Picks
First, let me place my selected studies in context by acknowledging my biases. As a clinician, I’m prone to choosing clinical rather than basic science or translational work — even if translational work might well end up exerting a pivotal impact on practice in the future. And now — in no particular order — here are my picks:
IFM 2017-03 Phase 3 Study
Frail patients are underrepresented in most myeloma studies, yet in this randomized trial for newly diagnosed myeloma, exclusively frail patients were enrolled. The trial compared daratumumab/lenalidomide to lenalidomide/dexamethasone, and the most recent follow/up shows a progression-free survival (PFS) (48.5 vs 21 months) and overall survival (OS) (not reached vs 36 months) benefit to daratumumab/lenalidomide. What I see in practice is that anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies are the best-tolerated drugs in this space and should be the backbone of any regimen for frail patients. Steroids should be omitted as early as possible. Future trials may optimize what to give in addition to the anti-CD38 therapy, and how to adapt/escalate therapy to frailty and clinical status, as lenalidomide remains difficult for such patients to tolerate.
AQUILA Study
This is a randomized, phase 3 comparison of daratumumab to observation for patients with smoldering myeloma. The endpoint was PFS. For context, similar studies done in asymptomatic CLL have shown improved PFS, but not OS, and the authors of such studies have concluded that improvement in PFS alone should not justify a change in approach.
This study shows that daratumumab can improve laboratory markers and reduce progression (60-month PFS rates of 63.1% for daratumumab vs 40.8% with observation). However, several important caveats remain. The protocol only mandated spine/pelvis MRI imaging, not whole-body MRI imaging, and such imaging was only performed once a year, which may not be frequent enough to catch lesions at an earlier stage. These details have important implications, as previous research shows that up to half of lesions can be missed by doing only a spine MRI, as opposed to a whole-body MRI.
All of this means that had more comprehensive imaging been done, many more patients may have been diagnosed with myeloma. Such patients may have been undertreated, and single agent daratumumab, with a response rate of just 63%, may not have been enough. Conversely, some patients may also have been overtreated using this approach, as the protocol allowed patients who had been diagnosed with smoldering myeloma up to 5 years earlier to be enrolled. Many of these people could have had indolent disease for years prior to enrollment and may not have ever progressed.
Further information is needed to help us understand this study better. What was the nature of the progression events: asymptomatic lab changes or morbid end organ damage? Was daratumumab given when patients in the control arm progressed to myeloma? My concern is that if patients in the control arm do not universally receive modern daratumumab-containing therapies when they develop myeloma, then an overall survival advantage may be shown simply because patients in the intervention arm are getting a good drug earlier in the disease, while those in the control arm are not getting a good drug at all. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, it is likely this trial will lead to regulatory approval of daratumumab in this space, and lots of discussions from patients and clinicians alike.
Extended Follow-Up of Anito-Cel in its First In-Human study
Two chimeric antigen receptor therapy (CAR-T) products are currently approved for myeloma. Cilta-cel is clearly effective but is associated with problematic late-onset neurological toxicities. Ide-cel appears much less effective. There is clearly a need for a product that is both effective and safe.
Anito-cel has two relevant abstracts this meeting that show much promise. Extended follow-up of anito-cel from its first in human study shows a promising 27-month PFS of 52%, and with no cases of delayed neurotoxicity. I also eagerly await further information from the registrational single-arm study of anti-cel being presented at ASH 2024, which should (hopefully) lead to its accelerated approval.
Screening for Myeloma for all People With Vertebral Fractures Likely Unnecessary
This elegant study of over 9,000 people with vertebral fractures shows that absolute risks for myeloma were 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively, indicating that there is likely little benefit in evaluating asymptomatic individuals with incidentally discovered vertebral fractures for myeloma, unless other features are present. Spread the word.
Further Information on Cevostamab, Another Bispecific Option
We do need effective treatments for targets beyond just BCMA and GPRC5D. Cevostamab, a bispecific targeting FCRH5, represents another option, with updated data on 167 patients. With an overall response rate of 43% (duration of response, 10 months), and a response rate of about 30% in those with prior bispecific exposure, this data helps us contextualize expected benefits as we look forward to the eventual approval of this drug. The efficacy is relatively modest in those who have already progressed on bispecifics, but cevostamab would still be a welcome addition to our arsenal.
Is GPRC5D a Better Target for Car T Rather Than Bispecifics?
Our currently available GPRC5D bispecific (talquetamab) leads to high rates of skin, oral, and nail toxicity. This drug can also bring significant weight loss. These side effects make me consider that continuous targeting of GPRC5D through a bispecific may not be ideal, and that GPRC5D may be better as a one-time CAR T target. At ASH 2024, we will have 15-month follow-up data from BMS-986393, a GPRC5D CAR T. Response rates for this heavily pretreated population (76% of whom had triple refractory disease) were at 87%, with a median PFS of 14.5 months. Only 6% of patients experienced treatment-related weight loss, and nail (19%), skin (30%), and oral (31%) toxicities were relatively low. I look forward to updated data, as well as data on the resolution of the toxicities seen.
Daratumumab, a Game-Changer for AL Amyloidosis
A truly effective drug given early can change the natural history of disease, even if patients in the control arm only receive the drug later. A case in point is daratumumab. The 5-year survival rate was 76.1% for the daratumumab/cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm and 64.7% for cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm. This happened despite the fact that 67% of the control arm patients (among those who received therapy) went on to receive daratumumab later in the disease course.
Understanding how SMM Progresses to MM
We often hear that we should treat SMM and not just watch carefully because fractures may suddenly happen, or a patient may end up on dialysis. What this retrospective study tells us that amongst 427 patients with SMM, 42 had progression to myeloma, and amongst those 42, only 1 developed renal dysfunction (unclear if this resolved), and only 1 had lytic lesions that were symptomatic. The remainder were all asymptomatic lab and imaging changes. This is a retrospective study, and one should assume that follow-up was thus highly variable. It does not appear that diffusion weighted whole-body MRI imaging (our most sensitive imaging test) was employed universally or very frequently. Nevertheless, these powerful findings reassure us that, with close observation, morbidity is unlikely. Our group has designed a prospective study incorporating frequent diffusion weighted whole body MRI imaging to formally test this hypothesis (SPOTLIGHT, NCT06212323).
The Underperformance of Daratumumab/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone in the Real World
At every major meeting I am reminded of the disconnect between real-world efficacy and clinical trial efficacy. Case in point: In this Austrian experience, daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone led to a PFS of 22.7 months vs 61.9 months in the MAIA trial of daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Such a sobering difference! And if you think this is an isolated experience, even in a US real-world cohort, consider that in a recently published comparative study dara/len/dex underperformed, although the time to next treatment or death was longer (37.8 months).
Delayed Neurotoxicity may not be Just a Consequence of high tumor burden
We currently think that some of the scariest side effects of cilta-cel, such as delayed neurotoxicity, may be a consequence of a high number of cancer cells and may be prevented by better disease control at the time of infusion. This study, a sobering analysis of 52 patients with delayed neurotoxicity occurring after CAR T, included 8 patients (15%) who were not heavily pretreated, and all had less than 5% plasma cells at the time of infusion. None of these patients had extramedullary disease. This result worries me, especially because cilta-cel is being studied and is poised for future approval in earlier line settings. It suggests that this toxicity may not always be a product of disease burden, contrary to our current belief.
I will be paying close attention to these 10 myeloma studies at ASH 2024, where I look forward to meeting you and learning more.Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
First, let me place my selected studies in context by acknowledging my biases. As a clinician, I’m prone to choosing clinical rather than basic science or translational work — even if translational work might well end up exerting a pivotal impact on practice in the future. And now — in no particular order — here are my picks:
IFM 2017-03 Phase 3 Study
Frail patients are underrepresented in most myeloma studies, yet in this randomized trial for newly diagnosed myeloma, exclusively frail patients were enrolled. The trial compared daratumumab/lenalidomide to lenalidomide/dexamethasone, and the most recent follow/up shows a progression-free survival (PFS) (48.5 vs 21 months) and overall survival (OS) (not reached vs 36 months) benefit to daratumumab/lenalidomide. What I see in practice is that anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies are the best-tolerated drugs in this space and should be the backbone of any regimen for frail patients. Steroids should be omitted as early as possible. Future trials may optimize what to give in addition to the anti-CD38 therapy, and how to adapt/escalate therapy to frailty and clinical status, as lenalidomide remains difficult for such patients to tolerate.
AQUILA Study
This is a randomized, phase 3 comparison of daratumumab to observation for patients with smoldering myeloma. The endpoint was PFS. For context, similar studies done in asymptomatic CLL have shown improved PFS, but not OS, and the authors of such studies have concluded that improvement in PFS alone should not justify a change in approach.
This study shows that daratumumab can improve laboratory markers and reduce progression (60-month PFS rates of 63.1% for daratumumab vs 40.8% with observation). However, several important caveats remain. The protocol only mandated spine/pelvis MRI imaging, not whole-body MRI imaging, and such imaging was only performed once a year, which may not be frequent enough to catch lesions at an earlier stage. These details have important implications, as previous research shows that up to half of lesions can be missed by doing only a spine MRI, as opposed to a whole-body MRI.
All of this means that had more comprehensive imaging been done, many more patients may have been diagnosed with myeloma. Such patients may have been undertreated, and single agent daratumumab, with a response rate of just 63%, may not have been enough. Conversely, some patients may also have been overtreated using this approach, as the protocol allowed patients who had been diagnosed with smoldering myeloma up to 5 years earlier to be enrolled. Many of these people could have had indolent disease for years prior to enrollment and may not have ever progressed.
Further information is needed to help us understand this study better. What was the nature of the progression events: asymptomatic lab changes or morbid end organ damage? Was daratumumab given when patients in the control arm progressed to myeloma? My concern is that if patients in the control arm do not universally receive modern daratumumab-containing therapies when they develop myeloma, then an overall survival advantage may be shown simply because patients in the intervention arm are getting a good drug earlier in the disease, while those in the control arm are not getting a good drug at all. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, it is likely this trial will lead to regulatory approval of daratumumab in this space, and lots of discussions from patients and clinicians alike.
Extended Follow-Up of Anito-Cel in its First In-Human study
Two chimeric antigen receptor therapy (CAR-T) products are currently approved for myeloma. Cilta-cel is clearly effective but is associated with problematic late-onset neurological toxicities. Ide-cel appears much less effective. There is clearly a need for a product that is both effective and safe.
Anito-cel has two relevant abstracts this meeting that show much promise. Extended follow-up of anito-cel from its first in human study shows a promising 27-month PFS of 52%, and with no cases of delayed neurotoxicity. I also eagerly await further information from the registrational single-arm study of anti-cel being presented at ASH 2024, which should (hopefully) lead to its accelerated approval.
Screening for Myeloma for all People With Vertebral Fractures Likely Unnecessary
This elegant study of over 9,000 people with vertebral fractures shows that absolute risks for myeloma were 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively, indicating that there is likely little benefit in evaluating asymptomatic individuals with incidentally discovered vertebral fractures for myeloma, unless other features are present. Spread the word.
Further Information on Cevostamab, Another Bispecific Option
We do need effective treatments for targets beyond just BCMA and GPRC5D. Cevostamab, a bispecific targeting FCRH5, represents another option, with updated data on 167 patients. With an overall response rate of 43% (duration of response, 10 months), and a response rate of about 30% in those with prior bispecific exposure, this data helps us contextualize expected benefits as we look forward to the eventual approval of this drug. The efficacy is relatively modest in those who have already progressed on bispecifics, but cevostamab would still be a welcome addition to our arsenal.
Is GPRC5D a Better Target for Car T Rather Than Bispecifics?
Our currently available GPRC5D bispecific (talquetamab) leads to high rates of skin, oral, and nail toxicity. This drug can also bring significant weight loss. These side effects make me consider that continuous targeting of GPRC5D through a bispecific may not be ideal, and that GPRC5D may be better as a one-time CAR T target. At ASH 2024, we will have 15-month follow-up data from BMS-986393, a GPRC5D CAR T. Response rates for this heavily pretreated population (76% of whom had triple refractory disease) were at 87%, with a median PFS of 14.5 months. Only 6% of patients experienced treatment-related weight loss, and nail (19%), skin (30%), and oral (31%) toxicities were relatively low. I look forward to updated data, as well as data on the resolution of the toxicities seen.
Daratumumab, a Game-Changer for AL Amyloidosis
A truly effective drug given early can change the natural history of disease, even if patients in the control arm only receive the drug later. A case in point is daratumumab. The 5-year survival rate was 76.1% for the daratumumab/cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm and 64.7% for cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm. This happened despite the fact that 67% of the control arm patients (among those who received therapy) went on to receive daratumumab later in the disease course.
Understanding how SMM Progresses to MM
We often hear that we should treat SMM and not just watch carefully because fractures may suddenly happen, or a patient may end up on dialysis. What this retrospective study tells us that amongst 427 patients with SMM, 42 had progression to myeloma, and amongst those 42, only 1 developed renal dysfunction (unclear if this resolved), and only 1 had lytic lesions that were symptomatic. The remainder were all asymptomatic lab and imaging changes. This is a retrospective study, and one should assume that follow-up was thus highly variable. It does not appear that diffusion weighted whole-body MRI imaging (our most sensitive imaging test) was employed universally or very frequently. Nevertheless, these powerful findings reassure us that, with close observation, morbidity is unlikely. Our group has designed a prospective study incorporating frequent diffusion weighted whole body MRI imaging to formally test this hypothesis (SPOTLIGHT, NCT06212323).
The Underperformance of Daratumumab/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone in the Real World
At every major meeting I am reminded of the disconnect between real-world efficacy and clinical trial efficacy. Case in point: In this Austrian experience, daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone led to a PFS of 22.7 months vs 61.9 months in the MAIA trial of daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Such a sobering difference! And if you think this is an isolated experience, even in a US real-world cohort, consider that in a recently published comparative study dara/len/dex underperformed, although the time to next treatment or death was longer (37.8 months).
Delayed Neurotoxicity may not be Just a Consequence of high tumor burden
We currently think that some of the scariest side effects of cilta-cel, such as delayed neurotoxicity, may be a consequence of a high number of cancer cells and may be prevented by better disease control at the time of infusion. This study, a sobering analysis of 52 patients with delayed neurotoxicity occurring after CAR T, included 8 patients (15%) who were not heavily pretreated, and all had less than 5% plasma cells at the time of infusion. None of these patients had extramedullary disease. This result worries me, especially because cilta-cel is being studied and is poised for future approval in earlier line settings. It suggests that this toxicity may not always be a product of disease burden, contrary to our current belief.
I will be paying close attention to these 10 myeloma studies at ASH 2024, where I look forward to meeting you and learning more.Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
First, let me place my selected studies in context by acknowledging my biases. As a clinician, I’m prone to choosing clinical rather than basic science or translational work — even if translational work might well end up exerting a pivotal impact on practice in the future. And now — in no particular order — here are my picks:
IFM 2017-03 Phase 3 Study
Frail patients are underrepresented in most myeloma studies, yet in this randomized trial for newly diagnosed myeloma, exclusively frail patients were enrolled. The trial compared daratumumab/lenalidomide to lenalidomide/dexamethasone, and the most recent follow/up shows a progression-free survival (PFS) (48.5 vs 21 months) and overall survival (OS) (not reached vs 36 months) benefit to daratumumab/lenalidomide. What I see in practice is that anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies are the best-tolerated drugs in this space and should be the backbone of any regimen for frail patients. Steroids should be omitted as early as possible. Future trials may optimize what to give in addition to the anti-CD38 therapy, and how to adapt/escalate therapy to frailty and clinical status, as lenalidomide remains difficult for such patients to tolerate.
AQUILA Study
This is a randomized, phase 3 comparison of daratumumab to observation for patients with smoldering myeloma. The endpoint was PFS. For context, similar studies done in asymptomatic CLL have shown improved PFS, but not OS, and the authors of such studies have concluded that improvement in PFS alone should not justify a change in approach.
This study shows that daratumumab can improve laboratory markers and reduce progression (60-month PFS rates of 63.1% for daratumumab vs 40.8% with observation). However, several important caveats remain. The protocol only mandated spine/pelvis MRI imaging, not whole-body MRI imaging, and such imaging was only performed once a year, which may not be frequent enough to catch lesions at an earlier stage. These details have important implications, as previous research shows that up to half of lesions can be missed by doing only a spine MRI, as opposed to a whole-body MRI.
All of this means that had more comprehensive imaging been done, many more patients may have been diagnosed with myeloma. Such patients may have been undertreated, and single agent daratumumab, with a response rate of just 63%, may not have been enough. Conversely, some patients may also have been overtreated using this approach, as the protocol allowed patients who had been diagnosed with smoldering myeloma up to 5 years earlier to be enrolled. Many of these people could have had indolent disease for years prior to enrollment and may not have ever progressed.
Further information is needed to help us understand this study better. What was the nature of the progression events: asymptomatic lab changes or morbid end organ damage? Was daratumumab given when patients in the control arm progressed to myeloma? My concern is that if patients in the control arm do not universally receive modern daratumumab-containing therapies when they develop myeloma, then an overall survival advantage may be shown simply because patients in the intervention arm are getting a good drug earlier in the disease, while those in the control arm are not getting a good drug at all. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, it is likely this trial will lead to regulatory approval of daratumumab in this space, and lots of discussions from patients and clinicians alike.
Extended Follow-Up of Anito-Cel in its First In-Human study
Two chimeric antigen receptor therapy (CAR-T) products are currently approved for myeloma. Cilta-cel is clearly effective but is associated with problematic late-onset neurological toxicities. Ide-cel appears much less effective. There is clearly a need for a product that is both effective and safe.
Anito-cel has two relevant abstracts this meeting that show much promise. Extended follow-up of anito-cel from its first in human study shows a promising 27-month PFS of 52%, and with no cases of delayed neurotoxicity. I also eagerly await further information from the registrational single-arm study of anti-cel being presented at ASH 2024, which should (hopefully) lead to its accelerated approval.
Screening for Myeloma for all People With Vertebral Fractures Likely Unnecessary
This elegant study of over 9,000 people with vertebral fractures shows that absolute risks for myeloma were 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively, indicating that there is likely little benefit in evaluating asymptomatic individuals with incidentally discovered vertebral fractures for myeloma, unless other features are present. Spread the word.
Further Information on Cevostamab, Another Bispecific Option
We do need effective treatments for targets beyond just BCMA and GPRC5D. Cevostamab, a bispecific targeting FCRH5, represents another option, with updated data on 167 patients. With an overall response rate of 43% (duration of response, 10 months), and a response rate of about 30% in those with prior bispecific exposure, this data helps us contextualize expected benefits as we look forward to the eventual approval of this drug. The efficacy is relatively modest in those who have already progressed on bispecifics, but cevostamab would still be a welcome addition to our arsenal.
Is GPRC5D a Better Target for Car T Rather Than Bispecifics?
Our currently available GPRC5D bispecific (talquetamab) leads to high rates of skin, oral, and nail toxicity. This drug can also bring significant weight loss. These side effects make me consider that continuous targeting of GPRC5D through a bispecific may not be ideal, and that GPRC5D may be better as a one-time CAR T target. At ASH 2024, we will have 15-month follow-up data from BMS-986393, a GPRC5D CAR T. Response rates for this heavily pretreated population (76% of whom had triple refractory disease) were at 87%, with a median PFS of 14.5 months. Only 6% of patients experienced treatment-related weight loss, and nail (19%), skin (30%), and oral (31%) toxicities were relatively low. I look forward to updated data, as well as data on the resolution of the toxicities seen.
Daratumumab, a Game-Changer for AL Amyloidosis
A truly effective drug given early can change the natural history of disease, even if patients in the control arm only receive the drug later. A case in point is daratumumab. The 5-year survival rate was 76.1% for the daratumumab/cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm and 64.7% for cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm. This happened despite the fact that 67% of the control arm patients (among those who received therapy) went on to receive daratumumab later in the disease course.
Understanding how SMM Progresses to MM
We often hear that we should treat SMM and not just watch carefully because fractures may suddenly happen, or a patient may end up on dialysis. What this retrospective study tells us that amongst 427 patients with SMM, 42 had progression to myeloma, and amongst those 42, only 1 developed renal dysfunction (unclear if this resolved), and only 1 had lytic lesions that were symptomatic. The remainder were all asymptomatic lab and imaging changes. This is a retrospective study, and one should assume that follow-up was thus highly variable. It does not appear that diffusion weighted whole-body MRI imaging (our most sensitive imaging test) was employed universally or very frequently. Nevertheless, these powerful findings reassure us that, with close observation, morbidity is unlikely. Our group has designed a prospective study incorporating frequent diffusion weighted whole body MRI imaging to formally test this hypothesis (SPOTLIGHT, NCT06212323).
The Underperformance of Daratumumab/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone in the Real World
At every major meeting I am reminded of the disconnect between real-world efficacy and clinical trial efficacy. Case in point: In this Austrian experience, daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone led to a PFS of 22.7 months vs 61.9 months in the MAIA trial of daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Such a sobering difference! And if you think this is an isolated experience, even in a US real-world cohort, consider that in a recently published comparative study dara/len/dex underperformed, although the time to next treatment or death was longer (37.8 months).
Delayed Neurotoxicity may not be Just a Consequence of high tumor burden
We currently think that some of the scariest side effects of cilta-cel, such as delayed neurotoxicity, may be a consequence of a high number of cancer cells and may be prevented by better disease control at the time of infusion. This study, a sobering analysis of 52 patients with delayed neurotoxicity occurring after CAR T, included 8 patients (15%) who were not heavily pretreated, and all had less than 5% plasma cells at the time of infusion. None of these patients had extramedullary disease. This result worries me, especially because cilta-cel is being studied and is poised for future approval in earlier line settings. It suggests that this toxicity may not always be a product of disease burden, contrary to our current belief.
I will be paying close attention to these 10 myeloma studies at ASH 2024, where I look forward to meeting you and learning more.Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
FDA Approves Bispecific HER2 Antibody for Biliary Tract Cancer
This approval makes the bispecific antibody the first HER2-targeted treatment to carry the indication.
Zanidatamab binds two separate regions on the HER2 cell surface protein, crosslinking neighboring HER2 proteins, blocking HER2 signaling, and inducing cytotoxic immune responses.
The FDA simultaneously announced that it has also approved VENTANA PATHWAY anti–HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody (Ventana Medical Systems, Inc./Roche Diagnostics) as a companion diagnostic device to aid in identifying patients with BTC who may be eligible for treatment with zanidatamab.
Zanidatamab Trial Results
The approval of zanidatamab was based on the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 trial— which was open-label, multicenter, and single-arm — involving 62 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive (IHC3+) BTC. In this trial, zanidatamab 20 mg/kg was administered every 2 weeks to patients who had received gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy previously but not a HER2-targeted therapy.
The objective response rate was 52%, and the median duration of response was 14.9 months, according to the statement from the FDA.
The life expectancy for advanced BTC treated in the second line with standard chemotherapy is approximately 6-9 months, according to Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Boxed Warning and Adverse Events
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The most common adverse reactions reported in at least 20% of patients who received zanidatamab were diarrhea, infusion-related reactions, abdominal pain, and fatigue.
The recommended zanidatamab dose is 20 mg/kg, administered as an intravenous infusion once every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ application was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy designation, and orphan drug designation.
An ongoing phase 3 trial, HERIZON-BTC-302, is testing zanidatamab in combination with standard-of-care therapy in the first-line setting for advanced or metastatic HER2-positive BTC. The bispecific antibody is also being developed for HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This approval makes the bispecific antibody the first HER2-targeted treatment to carry the indication.
Zanidatamab binds two separate regions on the HER2 cell surface protein, crosslinking neighboring HER2 proteins, blocking HER2 signaling, and inducing cytotoxic immune responses.
The FDA simultaneously announced that it has also approved VENTANA PATHWAY anti–HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody (Ventana Medical Systems, Inc./Roche Diagnostics) as a companion diagnostic device to aid in identifying patients with BTC who may be eligible for treatment with zanidatamab.
Zanidatamab Trial Results
The approval of zanidatamab was based on the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 trial— which was open-label, multicenter, and single-arm — involving 62 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive (IHC3+) BTC. In this trial, zanidatamab 20 mg/kg was administered every 2 weeks to patients who had received gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy previously but not a HER2-targeted therapy.
The objective response rate was 52%, and the median duration of response was 14.9 months, according to the statement from the FDA.
The life expectancy for advanced BTC treated in the second line with standard chemotherapy is approximately 6-9 months, according to Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Boxed Warning and Adverse Events
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The most common adverse reactions reported in at least 20% of patients who received zanidatamab were diarrhea, infusion-related reactions, abdominal pain, and fatigue.
The recommended zanidatamab dose is 20 mg/kg, administered as an intravenous infusion once every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ application was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy designation, and orphan drug designation.
An ongoing phase 3 trial, HERIZON-BTC-302, is testing zanidatamab in combination with standard-of-care therapy in the first-line setting for advanced or metastatic HER2-positive BTC. The bispecific antibody is also being developed for HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This approval makes the bispecific antibody the first HER2-targeted treatment to carry the indication.
Zanidatamab binds two separate regions on the HER2 cell surface protein, crosslinking neighboring HER2 proteins, blocking HER2 signaling, and inducing cytotoxic immune responses.
The FDA simultaneously announced that it has also approved VENTANA PATHWAY anti–HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody (Ventana Medical Systems, Inc./Roche Diagnostics) as a companion diagnostic device to aid in identifying patients with BTC who may be eligible for treatment with zanidatamab.
Zanidatamab Trial Results
The approval of zanidatamab was based on the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 trial— which was open-label, multicenter, and single-arm — involving 62 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive (IHC3+) BTC. In this trial, zanidatamab 20 mg/kg was administered every 2 weeks to patients who had received gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy previously but not a HER2-targeted therapy.
The objective response rate was 52%, and the median duration of response was 14.9 months, according to the statement from the FDA.
The life expectancy for advanced BTC treated in the second line with standard chemotherapy is approximately 6-9 months, according to Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Boxed Warning and Adverse Events
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The most common adverse reactions reported in at least 20% of patients who received zanidatamab were diarrhea, infusion-related reactions, abdominal pain, and fatigue.
The recommended zanidatamab dose is 20 mg/kg, administered as an intravenous infusion once every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ application was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy designation, and orphan drug designation.
An ongoing phase 3 trial, HERIZON-BTC-302, is testing zanidatamab in combination with standard-of-care therapy in the first-line setting for advanced or metastatic HER2-positive BTC. The bispecific antibody is also being developed for HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
NCCN Expands Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment Guidelines
Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.
For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.
“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.
Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.
The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants.
For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.”
“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release.
“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.
For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.
“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.
Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.
The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants.
For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.”
“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release.
“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.
For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.
“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.
Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.
The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants.
For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.”
“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release.
“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Which Breast Cancer Patients Can Skip Postop Radiotherapy?
TOPLINE:
Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
- The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
- The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
- The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
- Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
- Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.
IN PRACTICE:
“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
LIMITATIONS:
One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.
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:
Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
- The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
- The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
- The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
- Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
- Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.
IN PRACTICE:
“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
LIMITATIONS:
One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.
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:
Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
- The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
- The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
- The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
- Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
- Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.
IN PRACTICE:
“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
LIMITATIONS:
One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.
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.
Stages I-III Screen-Detected CRC Boosts Disease-Free Survival Rates
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
- A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
- Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
- Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
- The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
- Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
- Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
- Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
- A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
- Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
- Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
- The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
- Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
- Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
- Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
- A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
- Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
- Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
- The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
- Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
- Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
- Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.