Surgical Oncology

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A substantial number of older women may experience worsening frailty after undergoing surgery and radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer, according to a new study.

About 1 in 5 experienced clinically significant deterioration in frailty status after treatment, the study team found. Women at highest risk for declines in frailty following treatment had “robust” baseline frailty status at diagnosis and underwent more invasive mastectomy compared with lumpectomy.

The fact that “robust” older women were more likely to become frail after locoregional therapy suggests that “thoughtful treatment decisions should be undertaken in all older women, not simply those who have frailty at diagnosis,” said the investigators, led by Christina Minami, MD, of Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center in Boston.

The study findings emphasize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to breast cancer treatment in the elderly, said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the research. “Some patients will sail through a surgery, and others are severely affected by it.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Given the growing number of older adults with breast cancer, understanding how age-related syndromes, such as frailty, may alter cancer outcomes and how cancer treatments change aging trajectories remains important.

To investigate, Dr. Minami and colleagues used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare data to identify 31,084 women (mean age, 73) who had been diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or stage I HR-positive, ERBB2-positive breast cancer and who underwent surgery (23% mastectomy, 77% lumpectomy) and radiation therapy.

Worsening frailty status was defined as a decline of 0.03 or greater in a validated frailty index from the time of diagnosis to 1 year. This level of change has been linked to greater mortality risk and greater cost of care.

Frailty status at diagnosis was “robust” in 56% of the women, prefrail in 40%, mildly frail in 4%, and moderately to severely frail in 0.3%.

According to the researchers, 21.4% of the women experienced clinically significant declines in their frailty status after treatment. These declines occurred in 25% of women who underwent mastectomy and 20% of those who underwent lumpectomy.

After adjusting for covariates, there was a higher likelihood of worsening frailty among women who were robustly frail at baseline, in comparison with those who were moderately to severely frail at baseline (odds ratio, 6.12), and in those who underwent mastectomy vs. lumpectomy (OR, 1.31).

Older age and race were also linked to worsening frailty status following treatment. Compared with younger women (aged 65-74 years), older women were more likely to experience worsening frailty (OR, 1.21 for women aged 75-79; OR, 1.53 for those aged 80-84; OR, 1.94 for those aged 85 and older). In addition, Black women were more likely than non-Hispanic White women to experience worsening frailty after treatment (OR, 1.12).

“Previous studies have documented lasting declines in functional status after surgery in older patients with breast cancer, but breast cancer treatment has not been implicated in worsening frailty to date,” Dr. Minami and colleagues explain. But “given the substantial proportion of women experiencing worsening frailty and the significant difference by breast surgery type, frailty status as a cancer therapy outcome should be further explored.” In addition, “tailoring locoregional therapy intensity in this population is important,” they write.

Dr. Cate explained that randomized clinical trials such as COMET and LORIS, which explore the monitoring of patients with DCIS in lieu of active treatment, “will likely make a big impact on this population, as we currently do not have randomized controlled data for observation of breast cancer.”

Dr. Cate added as well that assessing a patient’s ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status is vital “to determine who can really tolerate a breast cancer surgery” and that opting for antiestrogens, such as aromatase inhibitors, which can keep cancer at bay for years, “may be preferable for many older patients.”

The study was funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Department of Surgery’s Beal Fellowship. Dr. Minami and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A substantial number of older women may experience worsening frailty after undergoing surgery and radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer, according to a new study.

About 1 in 5 experienced clinically significant deterioration in frailty status after treatment, the study team found. Women at highest risk for declines in frailty following treatment had “robust” baseline frailty status at diagnosis and underwent more invasive mastectomy compared with lumpectomy.

The fact that “robust” older women were more likely to become frail after locoregional therapy suggests that “thoughtful treatment decisions should be undertaken in all older women, not simply those who have frailty at diagnosis,” said the investigators, led by Christina Minami, MD, of Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center in Boston.

The study findings emphasize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to breast cancer treatment in the elderly, said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the research. “Some patients will sail through a surgery, and others are severely affected by it.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Given the growing number of older adults with breast cancer, understanding how age-related syndromes, such as frailty, may alter cancer outcomes and how cancer treatments change aging trajectories remains important.

To investigate, Dr. Minami and colleagues used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare data to identify 31,084 women (mean age, 73) who had been diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or stage I HR-positive, ERBB2-positive breast cancer and who underwent surgery (23% mastectomy, 77% lumpectomy) and radiation therapy.

Worsening frailty status was defined as a decline of 0.03 or greater in a validated frailty index from the time of diagnosis to 1 year. This level of change has been linked to greater mortality risk and greater cost of care.

Frailty status at diagnosis was “robust” in 56% of the women, prefrail in 40%, mildly frail in 4%, and moderately to severely frail in 0.3%.

According to the researchers, 21.4% of the women experienced clinically significant declines in their frailty status after treatment. These declines occurred in 25% of women who underwent mastectomy and 20% of those who underwent lumpectomy.

After adjusting for covariates, there was a higher likelihood of worsening frailty among women who were robustly frail at baseline, in comparison with those who were moderately to severely frail at baseline (odds ratio, 6.12), and in those who underwent mastectomy vs. lumpectomy (OR, 1.31).

Older age and race were also linked to worsening frailty status following treatment. Compared with younger women (aged 65-74 years), older women were more likely to experience worsening frailty (OR, 1.21 for women aged 75-79; OR, 1.53 for those aged 80-84; OR, 1.94 for those aged 85 and older). In addition, Black women were more likely than non-Hispanic White women to experience worsening frailty after treatment (OR, 1.12).

“Previous studies have documented lasting declines in functional status after surgery in older patients with breast cancer, but breast cancer treatment has not been implicated in worsening frailty to date,” Dr. Minami and colleagues explain. But “given the substantial proportion of women experiencing worsening frailty and the significant difference by breast surgery type, frailty status as a cancer therapy outcome should be further explored.” In addition, “tailoring locoregional therapy intensity in this population is important,” they write.

Dr. Cate explained that randomized clinical trials such as COMET and LORIS, which explore the monitoring of patients with DCIS in lieu of active treatment, “will likely make a big impact on this population, as we currently do not have randomized controlled data for observation of breast cancer.”

Dr. Cate added as well that assessing a patient’s ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status is vital “to determine who can really tolerate a breast cancer surgery” and that opting for antiestrogens, such as aromatase inhibitors, which can keep cancer at bay for years, “may be preferable for many older patients.”

The study was funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Department of Surgery’s Beal Fellowship. Dr. Minami and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A substantial number of older women may experience worsening frailty after undergoing surgery and radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer, according to a new study.

About 1 in 5 experienced clinically significant deterioration in frailty status after treatment, the study team found. Women at highest risk for declines in frailty following treatment had “robust” baseline frailty status at diagnosis and underwent more invasive mastectomy compared with lumpectomy.

The fact that “robust” older women were more likely to become frail after locoregional therapy suggests that “thoughtful treatment decisions should be undertaken in all older women, not simply those who have frailty at diagnosis,” said the investigators, led by Christina Minami, MD, of Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center in Boston.

The study findings emphasize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to breast cancer treatment in the elderly, said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the research. “Some patients will sail through a surgery, and others are severely affected by it.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Given the growing number of older adults with breast cancer, understanding how age-related syndromes, such as frailty, may alter cancer outcomes and how cancer treatments change aging trajectories remains important.

To investigate, Dr. Minami and colleagues used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare data to identify 31,084 women (mean age, 73) who had been diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or stage I HR-positive, ERBB2-positive breast cancer and who underwent surgery (23% mastectomy, 77% lumpectomy) and radiation therapy.

Worsening frailty status was defined as a decline of 0.03 or greater in a validated frailty index from the time of diagnosis to 1 year. This level of change has been linked to greater mortality risk and greater cost of care.

Frailty status at diagnosis was “robust” in 56% of the women, prefrail in 40%, mildly frail in 4%, and moderately to severely frail in 0.3%.

According to the researchers, 21.4% of the women experienced clinically significant declines in their frailty status after treatment. These declines occurred in 25% of women who underwent mastectomy and 20% of those who underwent lumpectomy.

After adjusting for covariates, there was a higher likelihood of worsening frailty among women who were robustly frail at baseline, in comparison with those who were moderately to severely frail at baseline (odds ratio, 6.12), and in those who underwent mastectomy vs. lumpectomy (OR, 1.31).

Older age and race were also linked to worsening frailty status following treatment. Compared with younger women (aged 65-74 years), older women were more likely to experience worsening frailty (OR, 1.21 for women aged 75-79; OR, 1.53 for those aged 80-84; OR, 1.94 for those aged 85 and older). In addition, Black women were more likely than non-Hispanic White women to experience worsening frailty after treatment (OR, 1.12).

“Previous studies have documented lasting declines in functional status after surgery in older patients with breast cancer, but breast cancer treatment has not been implicated in worsening frailty to date,” Dr. Minami and colleagues explain. But “given the substantial proportion of women experiencing worsening frailty and the significant difference by breast surgery type, frailty status as a cancer therapy outcome should be further explored.” In addition, “tailoring locoregional therapy intensity in this population is important,” they write.

Dr. Cate explained that randomized clinical trials such as COMET and LORIS, which explore the monitoring of patients with DCIS in lieu of active treatment, “will likely make a big impact on this population, as we currently do not have randomized controlled data for observation of breast cancer.”

Dr. Cate added as well that assessing a patient’s ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status is vital “to determine who can really tolerate a breast cancer surgery” and that opting for antiestrogens, such as aromatase inhibitors, which can keep cancer at bay for years, “may be preferable for many older patients.”

The study was funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Department of Surgery’s Beal Fellowship. Dr. Minami and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with early stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the survival outcomes can be just as good with sublobar resection as with the more invasive lobar resection, suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.

These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.

Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.

Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.

The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.

In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.

“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.

However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”

She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”

“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”

While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”


 

Consistent with Japanese results

The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.

The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”

In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”

Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.

Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.

“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
 

Study details

Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.

In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.

After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.

The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).

The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.

Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.

An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.

It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.

“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”

Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.

Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.

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

For patients with early stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the survival outcomes can be just as good with sublobar resection as with the more invasive lobar resection, suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.

These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.

Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.

Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.

The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.

In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.

“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.

However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”

She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”

“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”

While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”


 

Consistent with Japanese results

The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.

The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”

In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”

Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.

Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.

“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
 

Study details

Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.

In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.

After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.

The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).

The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.

Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.

An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.

It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.

“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”

Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.

Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.

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

For patients with early stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the survival outcomes can be just as good with sublobar resection as with the more invasive lobar resection, suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.

These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.

Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.

Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.

The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.

In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.

“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.

However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”

She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”

“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”

While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”


 

Consistent with Japanese results

The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.

The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”

In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”

Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.

Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.

“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
 

Study details

Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.

In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.

After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.

The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).

The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.

Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.

An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.

It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.

“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”

Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.

Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anyone who practices Mohs micrographic surgery is likely to know the name Hugh Greenway, MD, the longtime head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, who was also recently selected as program director for cutaneous oncology at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Diego. He is also a former president of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

After earning his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, in 1974, Dr. Greenway was fellowship trained in Mohs skin cancer surgery by Frederic E. Mohs, MD, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He completed his dermatology residency at the Naval Medical Center San Diego and joined Scripps Clinic in 1983, where he launched the institution’s first Mohs surgery program, as well as a popular annual intensive course in superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery that bears his name. He was also the first physician in the world to use interferon as a nonsurgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma.

Courtesy Scripps Clinic

To date, Dr. Greenway has performed more than 41,000 Mohs surgery cases and has trained 61 fellows who practice in academic and clinical settings. In 2017, he received the Frederic E. Mohs Award from the ACMS at the college’s annual meeting. He is also a past CEO of Scripps Clinic. In this Q&A, Dr. Greenway opens up about what it was like to train with Dr. Mohs, what makes a good Mohs surgeon, and why he’s excited about the future of dermatology.
 

I understand that you first became interested in a medical career after meeting Dr. Carl Jones, a friend of your father who was your Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts in Georgia. What about Dr. Jones inspired you to pursue a career in medicine?

Dr. Jones was an internist/allergist in Atlanta, where I grew up. His three sons and I were friends. My dad had dealt with several medical problems being injured in World War II and subsequently undergoing a couple of kidney transplantations, so I developed an interest in medicine personally. Even though Dr. Jones was a specialist, he started out as a family doctor like I did, so he was interested in the whole person and all of his or her medical problems as opposed to those related to his specialty only. I traveled with the Boy Scouts to camp at places like Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Jones was involved with the medical set-ups of those large events. That also contributed to my interest in medicine.

As part of your 9-year service in the U.S. Navy, you spent 2 years as the flight surgeon at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base. What was your most memorable experience from that assignment?

Dobbins is a large facility with two Lockheed plants, and the Air Force had built the medical clinic, which was staffed by the Navy. Getting to know some of the active-duty members of the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard, and their commitment to our country, was memorable. Jimmy Carter was the president in those days. When he would fly in Dobbins, one of my jobs as the flight surgeon was to be on base when Air Force One landed or departed. One night, we had a DC-9 commercial aircraft coming from Huntsville, Ala., to Atlanta that got caught in a thunderstorm a little above 30,000 feet. Both engines went out and the aircraft essentially became a glider. The pilots tried to land on our runway but unfortunately, they ended up 4 miles short. We were heavily involved in responding to the crash, which was a tragic event. I also learned to fly (second seat) different types of aircraft during my assignment at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base, everything from the large C-5s to Navy fighter jets and helicopters. Coincidentally, Dr. Jones was involved with a couple of free health clinics in Atlanta when I was stationed there. Every Tuesday night, my wife (who is a nurse) and I would volunteer at a clinic in Cabbagetown, which was one of the poorer areas of Atlanta. It was a chance to give back to a group of people who didn’t have a whole lot.

In the middle your dermatology residency at Naval Medical Center San Diego, you were selected by Dr. Mohs for fellowship training in Mohs skin cancer surgery at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. What do you remember most about your training with Dr. Mohs?

Dr. Mohs was a kind, humble man who had this great idea about skin cancer. He was not a dermatologist; he was a general surgeon. The technique he developed was originally called chemosurgery because he put a chemical onto the skin. This was known as the fixed-tissue technique. Then we had a fresh-tissue technique, where we did not use the chemical, but we were able to use local anesthesia right away. That developed into the Mohs surgery we know today. Dr. Mohs did not name it that; he was very humble, but he was very proud of his technique. He was also a very hard worker. On the first day of my fellowship, I started at 7 in the morning and ended at 7 at night. It was the same for the last day of my fellowship. He also had an excellent office staff, many of whom had worked with him for many years. Patients with difficult skin cancers traveled to Madison from all over the world because there weren’t that many Mohs surgery clinics in those days. During the latter part of my fellowship, Michael McCall, MD, and I had the opportunity to remove a skin cancer from the nose of Dr. Mohs. We presented the case at a national conference, and I titled the talk “Mohs Surgery for Mohs’ Nose.”

Early in your career Dr. Mohs asked you to take over his practice, but you accepted an offer to establish the first Mohs surgery office at Scripps in San Diego instead. What convinced you to head West?

After my fellowship, I returned to San Diego to complete my residency with the Navy, where we opened a Mohs surgery clinic. Dr. Mohs came out for the ribbon cutting. During that time, I was taking care of several patients that he had treated in Wisconsin. Through that my wife and I ended up going to dinner with Cecil and Ida Green, philanthropists who made several financial gifts to Scripps Clinic – and for whom Scripps Green Hospital is named. Cecil cofounded Texas Instruments and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. During dinner, he suggested that I stay in San Diego for a year and work at Scripps after my residency assignment with the Navy. I agreed and have been here ever since.

What do you find most interesting about Mohs surgery?

In Mohs surgery, you’re able to provide not only surgical care to eliminate the tumor, but also the pathology and the reconstruction. That was interesting to me. Dr. Mohs was not that interested in reconstruction. He was more focused on the tumor, in part because with the original fixed-tissue technique you could not do the reconstruction. You had to wait for an extra layer of tissue to separate. But with the fresh-tissue technique, you were able to provide the reconstruction that day. Mohs surgery deals with a subset of tumors that are challenging to treat. That also spiked my academic and clinical interest.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in Mohs surgery to date?

In recent years, immunology has come into play, so now we have teams of clinicians in dermatology, medical oncology, surgery, and other subspecialties providing patients the best of care. In the arena of Mohs surgery itself, in the 1980s, the American College of Mohs Surgery developed a 1-year fellowship program, which enabled us to train many men and women to practice Mohs surgery. Most of them are dermatologists.

Please complete the sentence: “You can tell a good Mohs surgeon by the way he/she ...”

Treats patients, is willing to spend time with them, and shows an interest in them. One of the things we should strive for is to let patients know that they as a person are important; it’s not just the melanoma on their nose. We’re not only dealing with a skin cancer; we’re dealing with a patient who has skin cancer.

For the past 39 years, you have led Hugh Greenway’s Superficial Anatomy and Cutaneous Surgery course, which takes place every January in San Diego. What’s been key to sustaining this training course for nearly 4 decades?

There have been many people involved in its success, so it’s not just me. When I first started my practice, there really was not a focus on anatomy in the general dermatologic community. Dermatologic surgery textbooks contained very little content on surgical anatomy so I developed an interest a putting together a course that would cover some of this material. I met with Terence Davidson, MD, an otolaryngologist who was dean of continuing medical education at the University of California, San Diego. The course includes lectures from experts in many subspecialties and hands-on laboratories using cadavers to work on anatomy and surgical techniques. After about 16 years of doing the course Dr. Davidson told me: “When we started this course, as a group, the head and neck surgeons were the best to do the reconstructions on the face with skin flaps and grafts and layered closures. But now, as a group, the dermatologists are best at doing that.” That’s what we want to hear in medical education.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint?

I’m fortunate to practice at a place like Scripps, where there are many resources to look at what was happening with COVID-19. Clinically, we had to put a lot of things on hold, but we tried our best to keep our cancer patients in particular in the forefront of care. It has been a challenge, but fortunately we have been able to take care of patients after a brief timeout. Many of us remember the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. Having worked overseas and at missionary hospital where we had children die of measles because they were not vaccinated gave me a larger appreciation for the importance of vaccines. I recommend all young physicians who work with me to read, “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” by John M. Barry, which recounts the 1918 flu epidemic.

Who inspires you most in your work today?

I don’t view what I do as work. Dr. Jones and Dr. Mohs continue to inspire me with what they accomplished during their careers. You have to love people and love patients. Every patient who comes to see me has a story, so I try to understand their story. One of the things I really enjoy is training the young fellows. We train three Mohs fellows per year at Scripps, and it’s a great challenge every day.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dermatology will continue to evolve just like all other medical specialties. We’re going to see a large growth in telemedicine, and immunotherapy is playing a key role in dermatologic oncology. What excites me the most in medicine is the young people who enter the field willing to contribute their lives to helping others.

Anyone who practices Mohs micrographic surgery is likely to know the name Hugh Greenway, MD, the longtime head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, who was also recently selected as program director for cutaneous oncology at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Diego. He is also a former president of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

After earning his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, in 1974, Dr. Greenway was fellowship trained in Mohs skin cancer surgery by Frederic E. Mohs, MD, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He completed his dermatology residency at the Naval Medical Center San Diego and joined Scripps Clinic in 1983, where he launched the institution’s first Mohs surgery program, as well as a popular annual intensive course in superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery that bears his name. He was also the first physician in the world to use interferon as a nonsurgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma.

Courtesy Scripps Clinic

To date, Dr. Greenway has performed more than 41,000 Mohs surgery cases and has trained 61 fellows who practice in academic and clinical settings. In 2017, he received the Frederic E. Mohs Award from the ACMS at the college’s annual meeting. He is also a past CEO of Scripps Clinic. In this Q&A, Dr. Greenway opens up about what it was like to train with Dr. Mohs, what makes a good Mohs surgeon, and why he’s excited about the future of dermatology.
 

I understand that you first became interested in a medical career after meeting Dr. Carl Jones, a friend of your father who was your Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts in Georgia. What about Dr. Jones inspired you to pursue a career in medicine?

Dr. Jones was an internist/allergist in Atlanta, where I grew up. His three sons and I were friends. My dad had dealt with several medical problems being injured in World War II and subsequently undergoing a couple of kidney transplantations, so I developed an interest in medicine personally. Even though Dr. Jones was a specialist, he started out as a family doctor like I did, so he was interested in the whole person and all of his or her medical problems as opposed to those related to his specialty only. I traveled with the Boy Scouts to camp at places like Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Jones was involved with the medical set-ups of those large events. That also contributed to my interest in medicine.

As part of your 9-year service in the U.S. Navy, you spent 2 years as the flight surgeon at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base. What was your most memorable experience from that assignment?

Dobbins is a large facility with two Lockheed plants, and the Air Force had built the medical clinic, which was staffed by the Navy. Getting to know some of the active-duty members of the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard, and their commitment to our country, was memorable. Jimmy Carter was the president in those days. When he would fly in Dobbins, one of my jobs as the flight surgeon was to be on base when Air Force One landed or departed. One night, we had a DC-9 commercial aircraft coming from Huntsville, Ala., to Atlanta that got caught in a thunderstorm a little above 30,000 feet. Both engines went out and the aircraft essentially became a glider. The pilots tried to land on our runway but unfortunately, they ended up 4 miles short. We were heavily involved in responding to the crash, which was a tragic event. I also learned to fly (second seat) different types of aircraft during my assignment at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base, everything from the large C-5s to Navy fighter jets and helicopters. Coincidentally, Dr. Jones was involved with a couple of free health clinics in Atlanta when I was stationed there. Every Tuesday night, my wife (who is a nurse) and I would volunteer at a clinic in Cabbagetown, which was one of the poorer areas of Atlanta. It was a chance to give back to a group of people who didn’t have a whole lot.

In the middle your dermatology residency at Naval Medical Center San Diego, you were selected by Dr. Mohs for fellowship training in Mohs skin cancer surgery at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. What do you remember most about your training with Dr. Mohs?

Dr. Mohs was a kind, humble man who had this great idea about skin cancer. He was not a dermatologist; he was a general surgeon. The technique he developed was originally called chemosurgery because he put a chemical onto the skin. This was known as the fixed-tissue technique. Then we had a fresh-tissue technique, where we did not use the chemical, but we were able to use local anesthesia right away. That developed into the Mohs surgery we know today. Dr. Mohs did not name it that; he was very humble, but he was very proud of his technique. He was also a very hard worker. On the first day of my fellowship, I started at 7 in the morning and ended at 7 at night. It was the same for the last day of my fellowship. He also had an excellent office staff, many of whom had worked with him for many years. Patients with difficult skin cancers traveled to Madison from all over the world because there weren’t that many Mohs surgery clinics in those days. During the latter part of my fellowship, Michael McCall, MD, and I had the opportunity to remove a skin cancer from the nose of Dr. Mohs. We presented the case at a national conference, and I titled the talk “Mohs Surgery for Mohs’ Nose.”

Early in your career Dr. Mohs asked you to take over his practice, but you accepted an offer to establish the first Mohs surgery office at Scripps in San Diego instead. What convinced you to head West?

After my fellowship, I returned to San Diego to complete my residency with the Navy, where we opened a Mohs surgery clinic. Dr. Mohs came out for the ribbon cutting. During that time, I was taking care of several patients that he had treated in Wisconsin. Through that my wife and I ended up going to dinner with Cecil and Ida Green, philanthropists who made several financial gifts to Scripps Clinic – and for whom Scripps Green Hospital is named. Cecil cofounded Texas Instruments and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. During dinner, he suggested that I stay in San Diego for a year and work at Scripps after my residency assignment with the Navy. I agreed and have been here ever since.

What do you find most interesting about Mohs surgery?

In Mohs surgery, you’re able to provide not only surgical care to eliminate the tumor, but also the pathology and the reconstruction. That was interesting to me. Dr. Mohs was not that interested in reconstruction. He was more focused on the tumor, in part because with the original fixed-tissue technique you could not do the reconstruction. You had to wait for an extra layer of tissue to separate. But with the fresh-tissue technique, you were able to provide the reconstruction that day. Mohs surgery deals with a subset of tumors that are challenging to treat. That also spiked my academic and clinical interest.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in Mohs surgery to date?

In recent years, immunology has come into play, so now we have teams of clinicians in dermatology, medical oncology, surgery, and other subspecialties providing patients the best of care. In the arena of Mohs surgery itself, in the 1980s, the American College of Mohs Surgery developed a 1-year fellowship program, which enabled us to train many men and women to practice Mohs surgery. Most of them are dermatologists.

Please complete the sentence: “You can tell a good Mohs surgeon by the way he/she ...”

Treats patients, is willing to spend time with them, and shows an interest in them. One of the things we should strive for is to let patients know that they as a person are important; it’s not just the melanoma on their nose. We’re not only dealing with a skin cancer; we’re dealing with a patient who has skin cancer.

For the past 39 years, you have led Hugh Greenway’s Superficial Anatomy and Cutaneous Surgery course, which takes place every January in San Diego. What’s been key to sustaining this training course for nearly 4 decades?

There have been many people involved in its success, so it’s not just me. When I first started my practice, there really was not a focus on anatomy in the general dermatologic community. Dermatologic surgery textbooks contained very little content on surgical anatomy so I developed an interest a putting together a course that would cover some of this material. I met with Terence Davidson, MD, an otolaryngologist who was dean of continuing medical education at the University of California, San Diego. The course includes lectures from experts in many subspecialties and hands-on laboratories using cadavers to work on anatomy and surgical techniques. After about 16 years of doing the course Dr. Davidson told me: “When we started this course, as a group, the head and neck surgeons were the best to do the reconstructions on the face with skin flaps and grafts and layered closures. But now, as a group, the dermatologists are best at doing that.” That’s what we want to hear in medical education.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint?

I’m fortunate to practice at a place like Scripps, where there are many resources to look at what was happening with COVID-19. Clinically, we had to put a lot of things on hold, but we tried our best to keep our cancer patients in particular in the forefront of care. It has been a challenge, but fortunately we have been able to take care of patients after a brief timeout. Many of us remember the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. Having worked overseas and at missionary hospital where we had children die of measles because they were not vaccinated gave me a larger appreciation for the importance of vaccines. I recommend all young physicians who work with me to read, “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” by John M. Barry, which recounts the 1918 flu epidemic.

Who inspires you most in your work today?

I don’t view what I do as work. Dr. Jones and Dr. Mohs continue to inspire me with what they accomplished during their careers. You have to love people and love patients. Every patient who comes to see me has a story, so I try to understand their story. One of the things I really enjoy is training the young fellows. We train three Mohs fellows per year at Scripps, and it’s a great challenge every day.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dermatology will continue to evolve just like all other medical specialties. We’re going to see a large growth in telemedicine, and immunotherapy is playing a key role in dermatologic oncology. What excites me the most in medicine is the young people who enter the field willing to contribute their lives to helping others.

Anyone who practices Mohs micrographic surgery is likely to know the name Hugh Greenway, MD, the longtime head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, who was also recently selected as program director for cutaneous oncology at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Diego. He is also a former president of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

After earning his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, in 1974, Dr. Greenway was fellowship trained in Mohs skin cancer surgery by Frederic E. Mohs, MD, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He completed his dermatology residency at the Naval Medical Center San Diego and joined Scripps Clinic in 1983, where he launched the institution’s first Mohs surgery program, as well as a popular annual intensive course in superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery that bears his name. He was also the first physician in the world to use interferon as a nonsurgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma.

Courtesy Scripps Clinic

To date, Dr. Greenway has performed more than 41,000 Mohs surgery cases and has trained 61 fellows who practice in academic and clinical settings. In 2017, he received the Frederic E. Mohs Award from the ACMS at the college’s annual meeting. He is also a past CEO of Scripps Clinic. In this Q&A, Dr. Greenway opens up about what it was like to train with Dr. Mohs, what makes a good Mohs surgeon, and why he’s excited about the future of dermatology.
 

I understand that you first became interested in a medical career after meeting Dr. Carl Jones, a friend of your father who was your Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts in Georgia. What about Dr. Jones inspired you to pursue a career in medicine?

Dr. Jones was an internist/allergist in Atlanta, where I grew up. His three sons and I were friends. My dad had dealt with several medical problems being injured in World War II and subsequently undergoing a couple of kidney transplantations, so I developed an interest in medicine personally. Even though Dr. Jones was a specialist, he started out as a family doctor like I did, so he was interested in the whole person and all of his or her medical problems as opposed to those related to his specialty only. I traveled with the Boy Scouts to camp at places like Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Jones was involved with the medical set-ups of those large events. That also contributed to my interest in medicine.

As part of your 9-year service in the U.S. Navy, you spent 2 years as the flight surgeon at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base. What was your most memorable experience from that assignment?

Dobbins is a large facility with two Lockheed plants, and the Air Force had built the medical clinic, which was staffed by the Navy. Getting to know some of the active-duty members of the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard, and their commitment to our country, was memorable. Jimmy Carter was the president in those days. When he would fly in Dobbins, one of my jobs as the flight surgeon was to be on base when Air Force One landed or departed. One night, we had a DC-9 commercial aircraft coming from Huntsville, Ala., to Atlanta that got caught in a thunderstorm a little above 30,000 feet. Both engines went out and the aircraft essentially became a glider. The pilots tried to land on our runway but unfortunately, they ended up 4 miles short. We were heavily involved in responding to the crash, which was a tragic event. I also learned to fly (second seat) different types of aircraft during my assignment at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base, everything from the large C-5s to Navy fighter jets and helicopters. Coincidentally, Dr. Jones was involved with a couple of free health clinics in Atlanta when I was stationed there. Every Tuesday night, my wife (who is a nurse) and I would volunteer at a clinic in Cabbagetown, which was one of the poorer areas of Atlanta. It was a chance to give back to a group of people who didn’t have a whole lot.

In the middle your dermatology residency at Naval Medical Center San Diego, you were selected by Dr. Mohs for fellowship training in Mohs skin cancer surgery at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. What do you remember most about your training with Dr. Mohs?

Dr. Mohs was a kind, humble man who had this great idea about skin cancer. He was not a dermatologist; he was a general surgeon. The technique he developed was originally called chemosurgery because he put a chemical onto the skin. This was known as the fixed-tissue technique. Then we had a fresh-tissue technique, where we did not use the chemical, but we were able to use local anesthesia right away. That developed into the Mohs surgery we know today. Dr. Mohs did not name it that; he was very humble, but he was very proud of his technique. He was also a very hard worker. On the first day of my fellowship, I started at 7 in the morning and ended at 7 at night. It was the same for the last day of my fellowship. He also had an excellent office staff, many of whom had worked with him for many years. Patients with difficult skin cancers traveled to Madison from all over the world because there weren’t that many Mohs surgery clinics in those days. During the latter part of my fellowship, Michael McCall, MD, and I had the opportunity to remove a skin cancer from the nose of Dr. Mohs. We presented the case at a national conference, and I titled the talk “Mohs Surgery for Mohs’ Nose.”

Early in your career Dr. Mohs asked you to take over his practice, but you accepted an offer to establish the first Mohs surgery office at Scripps in San Diego instead. What convinced you to head West?

After my fellowship, I returned to San Diego to complete my residency with the Navy, where we opened a Mohs surgery clinic. Dr. Mohs came out for the ribbon cutting. During that time, I was taking care of several patients that he had treated in Wisconsin. Through that my wife and I ended up going to dinner with Cecil and Ida Green, philanthropists who made several financial gifts to Scripps Clinic – and for whom Scripps Green Hospital is named. Cecil cofounded Texas Instruments and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. During dinner, he suggested that I stay in San Diego for a year and work at Scripps after my residency assignment with the Navy. I agreed and have been here ever since.

What do you find most interesting about Mohs surgery?

In Mohs surgery, you’re able to provide not only surgical care to eliminate the tumor, but also the pathology and the reconstruction. That was interesting to me. Dr. Mohs was not that interested in reconstruction. He was more focused on the tumor, in part because with the original fixed-tissue technique you could not do the reconstruction. You had to wait for an extra layer of tissue to separate. But with the fresh-tissue technique, you were able to provide the reconstruction that day. Mohs surgery deals with a subset of tumors that are challenging to treat. That also spiked my academic and clinical interest.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in Mohs surgery to date?

In recent years, immunology has come into play, so now we have teams of clinicians in dermatology, medical oncology, surgery, and other subspecialties providing patients the best of care. In the arena of Mohs surgery itself, in the 1980s, the American College of Mohs Surgery developed a 1-year fellowship program, which enabled us to train many men and women to practice Mohs surgery. Most of them are dermatologists.

Please complete the sentence: “You can tell a good Mohs surgeon by the way he/she ...”

Treats patients, is willing to spend time with them, and shows an interest in them. One of the things we should strive for is to let patients know that they as a person are important; it’s not just the melanoma on their nose. We’re not only dealing with a skin cancer; we’re dealing with a patient who has skin cancer.

For the past 39 years, you have led Hugh Greenway’s Superficial Anatomy and Cutaneous Surgery course, which takes place every January in San Diego. What’s been key to sustaining this training course for nearly 4 decades?

There have been many people involved in its success, so it’s not just me. When I first started my practice, there really was not a focus on anatomy in the general dermatologic community. Dermatologic surgery textbooks contained very little content on surgical anatomy so I developed an interest a putting together a course that would cover some of this material. I met with Terence Davidson, MD, an otolaryngologist who was dean of continuing medical education at the University of California, San Diego. The course includes lectures from experts in many subspecialties and hands-on laboratories using cadavers to work on anatomy and surgical techniques. After about 16 years of doing the course Dr. Davidson told me: “When we started this course, as a group, the head and neck surgeons were the best to do the reconstructions on the face with skin flaps and grafts and layered closures. But now, as a group, the dermatologists are best at doing that.” That’s what we want to hear in medical education.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint?

I’m fortunate to practice at a place like Scripps, where there are many resources to look at what was happening with COVID-19. Clinically, we had to put a lot of things on hold, but we tried our best to keep our cancer patients in particular in the forefront of care. It has been a challenge, but fortunately we have been able to take care of patients after a brief timeout. Many of us remember the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. Having worked overseas and at missionary hospital where we had children die of measles because they were not vaccinated gave me a larger appreciation for the importance of vaccines. I recommend all young physicians who work with me to read, “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” by John M. Barry, which recounts the 1918 flu epidemic.

Who inspires you most in your work today?

I don’t view what I do as work. Dr. Jones and Dr. Mohs continue to inspire me with what they accomplished during their careers. You have to love people and love patients. Every patient who comes to see me has a story, so I try to understand their story. One of the things I really enjoy is training the young fellows. We train three Mohs fellows per year at Scripps, and it’s a great challenge every day.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dermatology will continue to evolve just like all other medical specialties. We’re going to see a large growth in telemedicine, and immunotherapy is playing a key role in dermatologic oncology. What excites me the most in medicine is the young people who enter the field willing to contribute their lives to helping others.