Jim Kling

Black patients often have worse outcomes than White patients for a range of diseases and conditions, including prostate cancer. But now, a new study revealed a surprising twist: Black men who received radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer fared better.

Overall, Black men have a 50% higher risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer, and an 80% greater risk of death than White men. Those numbers have complicated roots: There are differences in access to medical care, clinical trial enrollment, access to screening, and frequency of definitive treatment.

The new study, published online Dec. 29, 2021, in JAMA Network Open, was a meta-analysis of 8,814 men (18.5% Black, 81.5% White) who participated in 7 randomized, clinical trials that compared definitive radiotherapy with or without short- or long-term androgen deprivation therapy. The researchers found that Black men had more features of high-risk disease, but they were less likely than White men to experience biochemical recurrence (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.79; P < .001), distant metastasis (sHR, 0.69; P = .002), or prostate cancer-specific mortality (sHR, 0.68; P = .01).

“These results provide high-level evidence challenging the common belief that Black men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer will necessarily have a worse prognosis than White men,” said study coauthor Amar Kishan, MD, in a press release. Dr. Kishan is associate professor and vice chair of clinical and translational research at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a researcher at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“This is especially important because an unfounded belief can inadvertently contribute to ‘cancer injustice,’ leading to the use of more aggressive treatments than might be necessary – potentially reducing quality of life and diverting attention away from other important factors that can influence outcome, including access to more comprehensive health care,” Dr. Kishan said.

Better health care coverage may indeed be the driving force behind the benefit, according to an accompanying editorial authored by Bogdana Schmidt, MD, MPH and Neeraj Agarwal, MD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. The results suggest that, when Black men with prostate cancer get the high quality of care seen in clinical trials and receive definitive therapy, they achieve good results.

It also suggests a path toward improving outcomes. “Through a multidisciplinary effort of enriching cohort studies with Black men, enrolling Black men into clinical trials and continuing the search for tumor-specific genomic factors, treatment-specific response factors, and pharmacologic response differences, as a community we can unequivocally improve prostate cancer care for Black men,” the editorial authors wrote.

Enrollment in clinical trials has also been linked to improved outcomes in studies of docetaxel and prednisone, enzalutamide and androgen deprivation therapy, and abiraterone acetate and prednisone. Other studies have shown that Black men in clinical trials or who get treated in high-volume centers are less likely to experience the adverse outcomes seen more widely among Black men.

The new finding that Black men have better outcomes with radiotherapy may also have a biological basis, as a retrospective study of patients undergoing prostatectomy for prostate cancer found that Black men had lower levels of mismatch repair genes and DNA repair activity.

The study isn’t the first to implicate access to care in outcome differential between Black and White men with prostate cancer. A 2019 study compared outcomes between White and Black men within registries that have standardized access, which is expected to minimize racial disparities. The researchers found no differences in prostate cancer–specific mortality within these databases. However, the differences in outcomes surfaced between Black and White men when they examined data from a large federal registry that reflects social and economic barriers to health care.

The authors of both the study and the editorial have extensive financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Black patients often have worse outcomes than White patients for a range of diseases and conditions, including prostate cancer. But now, a new study revealed a surprising twist: Black men who received radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer fared better.

Overall, Black men have a 50% higher risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer, and an 80% greater risk of death than White men. Those numbers have complicated roots: There are differences in access to medical care, clinical trial enrollment, access to screening, and frequency of definitive treatment.

The new study, published online Dec. 29, 2021, in JAMA Network Open, was a meta-analysis of 8,814 men (18.5% Black, 81.5% White) who participated in 7 randomized, clinical trials that compared definitive radiotherapy with or without short- or long-term androgen deprivation therapy. The researchers found that Black men had more features of high-risk disease, but they were less likely than White men to experience biochemical recurrence (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.79; P < .001), distant metastasis (sHR, 0.69; P = .002), or prostate cancer-specific mortality (sHR, 0.68; P = .01).

“These results provide high-level evidence challenging the common belief that Black men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer will necessarily have a worse prognosis than White men,” said study coauthor Amar Kishan, MD, in a press release. Dr. Kishan is associate professor and vice chair of clinical and translational research at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a researcher at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“This is especially important because an unfounded belief can inadvertently contribute to ‘cancer injustice,’ leading to the use of more aggressive treatments than might be necessary – potentially reducing quality of life and diverting attention away from other important factors that can influence outcome, including access to more comprehensive health care,” Dr. Kishan said.

Better health care coverage may indeed be the driving force behind the benefit, according to an accompanying editorial authored by Bogdana Schmidt, MD, MPH and Neeraj Agarwal, MD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. The results suggest that, when Black men with prostate cancer get the high quality of care seen in clinical trials and receive definitive therapy, they achieve good results.

It also suggests a path toward improving outcomes. “Through a multidisciplinary effort of enriching cohort studies with Black men, enrolling Black men into clinical trials and continuing the search for tumor-specific genomic factors, treatment-specific response factors, and pharmacologic response differences, as a community we can unequivocally improve prostate cancer care for Black men,” the editorial authors wrote.

Enrollment in clinical trials has also been linked to improved outcomes in studies of docetaxel and prednisone, enzalutamide and androgen deprivation therapy, and abiraterone acetate and prednisone. Other studies have shown that Black men in clinical trials or who get treated in high-volume centers are less likely to experience the adverse outcomes seen more widely among Black men.

The new finding that Black men have better outcomes with radiotherapy may also have a biological basis, as a retrospective study of patients undergoing prostatectomy for prostate cancer found that Black men had lower levels of mismatch repair genes and DNA repair activity.

The study isn’t the first to implicate access to care in outcome differential between Black and White men with prostate cancer. A 2019 study compared outcomes between White and Black men within registries that have standardized access, which is expected to minimize racial disparities. The researchers found no differences in prostate cancer–specific mortality within these databases. However, the differences in outcomes surfaced between Black and White men when they examined data from a large federal registry that reflects social and economic barriers to health care.

The authors of both the study and the editorial have extensive financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Black patients often have worse outcomes than White patients for a range of diseases and conditions, including prostate cancer. But now, a new study revealed a surprising twist: Black men who received radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer fared better.

Overall, Black men have a 50% higher risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer, and an 80% greater risk of death than White men. Those numbers have complicated roots: There are differences in access to medical care, clinical trial enrollment, access to screening, and frequency of definitive treatment.

The new study, published online Dec. 29, 2021, in JAMA Network Open, was a meta-analysis of 8,814 men (18.5% Black, 81.5% White) who participated in 7 randomized, clinical trials that compared definitive radiotherapy with or without short- or long-term androgen deprivation therapy. The researchers found that Black men had more features of high-risk disease, but they were less likely than White men to experience biochemical recurrence (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.79; P < .001), distant metastasis (sHR, 0.69; P = .002), or prostate cancer-specific mortality (sHR, 0.68; P = .01).

“These results provide high-level evidence challenging the common belief that Black men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer will necessarily have a worse prognosis than White men,” said study coauthor Amar Kishan, MD, in a press release. Dr. Kishan is associate professor and vice chair of clinical and translational research at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a researcher at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“This is especially important because an unfounded belief can inadvertently contribute to ‘cancer injustice,’ leading to the use of more aggressive treatments than might be necessary – potentially reducing quality of life and diverting attention away from other important factors that can influence outcome, including access to more comprehensive health care,” Dr. Kishan said.

Better health care coverage may indeed be the driving force behind the benefit, according to an accompanying editorial authored by Bogdana Schmidt, MD, MPH and Neeraj Agarwal, MD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. The results suggest that, when Black men with prostate cancer get the high quality of care seen in clinical trials and receive definitive therapy, they achieve good results.

It also suggests a path toward improving outcomes. “Through a multidisciplinary effort of enriching cohort studies with Black men, enrolling Black men into clinical trials and continuing the search for tumor-specific genomic factors, treatment-specific response factors, and pharmacologic response differences, as a community we can unequivocally improve prostate cancer care for Black men,” the editorial authors wrote.

Enrollment in clinical trials has also been linked to improved outcomes in studies of docetaxel and prednisone, enzalutamide and androgen deprivation therapy, and abiraterone acetate and prednisone. Other studies have shown that Black men in clinical trials or who get treated in high-volume centers are less likely to experience the adverse outcomes seen more widely among Black men.

The new finding that Black men have better outcomes with radiotherapy may also have a biological basis, as a retrospective study of patients undergoing prostatectomy for prostate cancer found that Black men had lower levels of mismatch repair genes and DNA repair activity.

The study isn’t the first to implicate access to care in outcome differential between Black and White men with prostate cancer. A 2019 study compared outcomes between White and Black men within registries that have standardized access, which is expected to minimize racial disparities. The researchers found no differences in prostate cancer–specific mortality within these databases. However, the differences in outcomes surfaced between Black and White men when they examined data from a large federal registry that reflects social and economic barriers to health care.

The authors of both the study and the editorial have extensive financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

For the first time, researchers have analyzed oropharyngeal cancer trends in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and the cross-sectional study shows the condition is increasingly common among older men. The researchers also found an increase in the proportion of regional stage oropharyngeal cancer (3.1% per year in men, 1.0% in women) and mortality among men (2.1% per year).

There were also significantly higher rates of oropharyngeal cancer in Midwestern and Southeastern states, suggesting a need for improved prevention efforts. In addition to older men, an increasing number of people with oropharyngeal cancer are immunosuppressed patients who, like older men, present with advanced tumors.

The new data present a picture of an evolving landscape. “Fifteen or 20 years ago, the increase was largely occurring among young individuals, but now, it has shifted. In our study, we found the most rapid rise now is among men aged 65 years and older, and a rise in mortality as a result of these increases,” said lead author Ashish A. Deshmukh, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor of health services, research, management, and policy at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

The Southeast and Midwest aren’t just hotspots for men. Although the incidence was lower among women overall, the Southeast and Midwest saw greater increases.

The study, published Dec. 16, 2021, in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, also hints that the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, first introduced in 2006, may be having an impact on oropharyngeal cancer incidence. When the researchers stratified incidence by age group, they found a decline among individuals younger than 45 from 2008 to 2017 of 2.1% per year. “It might be still quite early to say that the decrease is driven by HPV vaccination, but we are starting to see a decrease in oropharyngeal cancer incidence among the youngest age group, which is likely to benefit from HPV vaccination earliest,” Dr. Deshmukh said in an interview.

The researchers examined data on 260,182 oropharyngeal cancer cases from the U.S. Cancer Statistics data set from 2001 to 2017. About 80% of cases were in men, and 54% occurred in Southeastern (32%) or Midwestern states (22%). Overall, there was a 2.7% annual increase in oropharyngeal cancer nationally among men, and 0.5% among women. Increases were highest among men in states in the Southeast and Midwest regions, and a similar trend was seen among women with a greater than 2% increase per year. Mortality increased 2.1% per year among men between 2006 and 2017, but declined by 1.2% in women.

According to Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Louise Davies, MD, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H., the study leads to cautious optimism that the HPV vaccine may be having an effect on oropharyngeal cancer incidence in young men. Still, unvaccinated older individuals will remain vulnerable. “This makes the recent extension of the age of eligibility for HPV vaccination to age 45 years a critical advance. The more adults up to the age of 45 years who get vaccinated now, the more benefit we will see from their vaccination in the next 2 or more decades. We need to ring out this message loud and clear as head and neck cancer clinicians,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study was limited in part by the fact that U.S. cancer registry data has no information on risk factors.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health.

For the first time, researchers have analyzed oropharyngeal cancer trends in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and the cross-sectional study shows the condition is increasingly common among older men. The researchers also found an increase in the proportion of regional stage oropharyngeal cancer (3.1% per year in men, 1.0% in women) and mortality among men (2.1% per year).

There were also significantly higher rates of oropharyngeal cancer in Midwestern and Southeastern states, suggesting a need for improved prevention efforts. In addition to older men, an increasing number of people with oropharyngeal cancer are immunosuppressed patients who, like older men, present with advanced tumors.

The new data present a picture of an evolving landscape. “Fifteen or 20 years ago, the increase was largely occurring among young individuals, but now, it has shifted. In our study, we found the most rapid rise now is among men aged 65 years and older, and a rise in mortality as a result of these increases,” said lead author Ashish A. Deshmukh, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor of health services, research, management, and policy at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

The Southeast and Midwest aren’t just hotspots for men. Although the incidence was lower among women overall, the Southeast and Midwest saw greater increases.

The study, published Dec. 16, 2021, in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, also hints that the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, first introduced in 2006, may be having an impact on oropharyngeal cancer incidence. When the researchers stratified incidence by age group, they found a decline among individuals younger than 45 from 2008 to 2017 of 2.1% per year. “It might be still quite early to say that the decrease is driven by HPV vaccination, but we are starting to see a decrease in oropharyngeal cancer incidence among the youngest age group, which is likely to benefit from HPV vaccination earliest,” Dr. Deshmukh said in an interview.

The researchers examined data on 260,182 oropharyngeal cancer cases from the U.S. Cancer Statistics data set from 2001 to 2017. About 80% of cases were in men, and 54% occurred in Southeastern (32%) or Midwestern states (22%). Overall, there was a 2.7% annual increase in oropharyngeal cancer nationally among men, and 0.5% among women. Increases were highest among men in states in the Southeast and Midwest regions, and a similar trend was seen among women with a greater than 2% increase per year. Mortality increased 2.1% per year among men between 2006 and 2017, but declined by 1.2% in women.

According to Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Louise Davies, MD, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H., the study leads to cautious optimism that the HPV vaccine may be having an effect on oropharyngeal cancer incidence in young men. Still, unvaccinated older individuals will remain vulnerable. “This makes the recent extension of the age of eligibility for HPV vaccination to age 45 years a critical advance. The more adults up to the age of 45 years who get vaccinated now, the more benefit we will see from their vaccination in the next 2 or more decades. We need to ring out this message loud and clear as head and neck cancer clinicians,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study was limited in part by the fact that U.S. cancer registry data has no information on risk factors.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health.

For the first time, researchers have analyzed oropharyngeal cancer trends in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and the cross-sectional study shows the condition is increasingly common among older men. The researchers also found an increase in the proportion of regional stage oropharyngeal cancer (3.1% per year in men, 1.0% in women) and mortality among men (2.1% per year).

There were also significantly higher rates of oropharyngeal cancer in Midwestern and Southeastern states, suggesting a need for improved prevention efforts. In addition to older men, an increasing number of people with oropharyngeal cancer are immunosuppressed patients who, like older men, present with advanced tumors.

The new data present a picture of an evolving landscape. “Fifteen or 20 years ago, the increase was largely occurring among young individuals, but now, it has shifted. In our study, we found the most rapid rise now is among men aged 65 years and older, and a rise in mortality as a result of these increases,” said lead author Ashish A. Deshmukh, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor of health services, research, management, and policy at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

The Southeast and Midwest aren’t just hotspots for men. Although the incidence was lower among women overall, the Southeast and Midwest saw greater increases.

The study, published Dec. 16, 2021, in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, also hints that the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, first introduced in 2006, may be having an impact on oropharyngeal cancer incidence. When the researchers stratified incidence by age group, they found a decline among individuals younger than 45 from 2008 to 2017 of 2.1% per year. “It might be still quite early to say that the decrease is driven by HPV vaccination, but we are starting to see a decrease in oropharyngeal cancer incidence among the youngest age group, which is likely to benefit from HPV vaccination earliest,” Dr. Deshmukh said in an interview.

The researchers examined data on 260,182 oropharyngeal cancer cases from the U.S. Cancer Statistics data set from 2001 to 2017. About 80% of cases were in men, and 54% occurred in Southeastern (32%) or Midwestern states (22%). Overall, there was a 2.7% annual increase in oropharyngeal cancer nationally among men, and 0.5% among women. Increases were highest among men in states in the Southeast and Midwest regions, and a similar trend was seen among women with a greater than 2% increase per year. Mortality increased 2.1% per year among men between 2006 and 2017, but declined by 1.2% in women.

According to Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Louise Davies, MD, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H., the study leads to cautious optimism that the HPV vaccine may be having an effect on oropharyngeal cancer incidence in young men. Still, unvaccinated older individuals will remain vulnerable. “This makes the recent extension of the age of eligibility for HPV vaccination to age 45 years a critical advance. The more adults up to the age of 45 years who get vaccinated now, the more benefit we will see from their vaccination in the next 2 or more decades. We need to ring out this message loud and clear as head and neck cancer clinicians,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study was limited in part by the fact that U.S. cancer registry data has no information on risk factors.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health.

In non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), earlier detection may be an under-appreciated factor in recent trends of declining mortality, according to a new analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries published in JAMA Network Open. Between 2006 and 2016, a stage shift occurred with an increase in stage 1 and 2 diagnoses and a decrease in stage 3 and 4 diagnoses.

While targeted therapy and immunotherapy have rightfully been credited with improved NSCLC survival, the new results underline the importance of screening, according to study author Emanuela Taioli, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Translational Epidemiology and the associate director for population science at the Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

She noted that the average survival for stage 1 or stage 2 patients was 57 months, but just 7 months when the stage diagnosis was 3 or 4. “So being diagnosed with stage 1 and 2 is a major driver of better survival,” said Dr. Taioli in an interview.

The study included 312,382 individuals diagnosed with NSCLC (53.4% male; median age, 68). Incidence-based, 5-year mortality declined by 3.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.4%-4.1%). Stage 1 or 2 diagnoses increased from 26.5% to 31.2% of diagnoses between 2006 and 2016 (average annual percentage change, 1.5%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.5%).

“Immunotherapy is a very exciting field. And it is an important contributor for people who have a disease that can be treated with immunotherapy, so that’s why people focus on that. But if you can diagnose the cancer earlier, that’s the best bet,” Dr. Taioli said.

Unfortunately, many patients and physicians haven’t received that message. Even though computed tomography lung cancer screening is covered by Medicare for current or former smokers, only about 7% of eligible patients undergo annual screening. Dr. Taioli said that a belief persists that lung cancer is so deadly that early detection isn’t effective.

But advances in therapy and surgery have changed that outlook. “It’s not true anymore. People don’t know, and physicians are not educated to the idea that lung cancer can be diagnosed earlier and save lives,” she said.

People who have quit smoking may be relatively easy to convince. “They made a big step, because quitting smoking is incredibly hard. I think they will be amenable to screening because they are in a phase [of life] in which they want to take care of themselves. The physician should really explain the benefits, and I don’t think they do it very clearly now,” Dr. Taioli said.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, and it did not include information on diagnostic method or many NSCLC risk factors.

Dr. Taioli has no relevant financial disclosures.

In non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), earlier detection may be an under-appreciated factor in recent trends of declining mortality, according to a new analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries published in JAMA Network Open. Between 2006 and 2016, a stage shift occurred with an increase in stage 1 and 2 diagnoses and a decrease in stage 3 and 4 diagnoses.

While targeted therapy and immunotherapy have rightfully been credited with improved NSCLC survival, the new results underline the importance of screening, according to study author Emanuela Taioli, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Translational Epidemiology and the associate director for population science at the Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

She noted that the average survival for stage 1 or stage 2 patients was 57 months, but just 7 months when the stage diagnosis was 3 or 4. “So being diagnosed with stage 1 and 2 is a major driver of better survival,” said Dr. Taioli in an interview.

The study included 312,382 individuals diagnosed with NSCLC (53.4% male; median age, 68). Incidence-based, 5-year mortality declined by 3.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.4%-4.1%). Stage 1 or 2 diagnoses increased from 26.5% to 31.2% of diagnoses between 2006 and 2016 (average annual percentage change, 1.5%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.5%).

“Immunotherapy is a very exciting field. And it is an important contributor for people who have a disease that can be treated with immunotherapy, so that’s why people focus on that. But if you can diagnose the cancer earlier, that’s the best bet,” Dr. Taioli said.

Unfortunately, many patients and physicians haven’t received that message. Even though computed tomography lung cancer screening is covered by Medicare for current or former smokers, only about 7% of eligible patients undergo annual screening. Dr. Taioli said that a belief persists that lung cancer is so deadly that early detection isn’t effective.

But advances in therapy and surgery have changed that outlook. “It’s not true anymore. People don’t know, and physicians are not educated to the idea that lung cancer can be diagnosed earlier and save lives,” she said.

People who have quit smoking may be relatively easy to convince. “They made a big step, because quitting smoking is incredibly hard. I think they will be amenable to screening because they are in a phase [of life] in which they want to take care of themselves. The physician should really explain the benefits, and I don’t think they do it very clearly now,” Dr. Taioli said.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, and it did not include information on diagnostic method or many NSCLC risk factors.

Dr. Taioli has no relevant financial disclosures.

In non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), earlier detection may be an under-appreciated factor in recent trends of declining mortality, according to a new analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries published in JAMA Network Open. Between 2006 and 2016, a stage shift occurred with an increase in stage 1 and 2 diagnoses and a decrease in stage 3 and 4 diagnoses.

While targeted therapy and immunotherapy have rightfully been credited with improved NSCLC survival, the new results underline the importance of screening, according to study author Emanuela Taioli, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Translational Epidemiology and the associate director for population science at the Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

She noted that the average survival for stage 1 or stage 2 patients was 57 months, but just 7 months when the stage diagnosis was 3 or 4. “So being diagnosed with stage 1 and 2 is a major driver of better survival,” said Dr. Taioli in an interview.

The study included 312,382 individuals diagnosed with NSCLC (53.4% male; median age, 68). Incidence-based, 5-year mortality declined by 3.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.4%-4.1%). Stage 1 or 2 diagnoses increased from 26.5% to 31.2% of diagnoses between 2006 and 2016 (average annual percentage change, 1.5%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.5%).

“Immunotherapy is a very exciting field. And it is an important contributor for people who have a disease that can be treated with immunotherapy, so that’s why people focus on that. But if you can diagnose the cancer earlier, that’s the best bet,” Dr. Taioli said.

Unfortunately, many patients and physicians haven’t received that message. Even though computed tomography lung cancer screening is covered by Medicare for current or former smokers, only about 7% of eligible patients undergo annual screening. Dr. Taioli said that a belief persists that lung cancer is so deadly that early detection isn’t effective.

But advances in therapy and surgery have changed that outlook. “It’s not true anymore. People don’t know, and physicians are not educated to the idea that lung cancer can be diagnosed earlier and save lives,” she said.

People who have quit smoking may be relatively easy to convince. “They made a big step, because quitting smoking is incredibly hard. I think they will be amenable to screening because they are in a phase [of life] in which they want to take care of themselves. The physician should really explain the benefits, and I don’t think they do it very clearly now,” Dr. Taioli said.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, and it did not include information on diagnostic method or many NSCLC risk factors.

Dr. Taioli has no relevant financial disclosures.

Hormone therapy in breast cancer patients can lead to mood and sleep disorders. A new randomized, controlled trial shows that omega-3 supplementation improves these symptoms. After 4 weeks of treatment, patients who received omega-3 reported better sleep, depression, and mood outcomes than those who received placebo.

Estrogen-receptor inhibitors are used to treat breast cancer with positive hormone receptors in combination with other therapies. However, the drugs can lead to long-term side effects, including hot flashes, night sweats, and changes to mood and sleep.

These side effects are often treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and some anticonvulsant drugs. Omega-3 supplements contain various polyunsaturated fatty acids, which influence cell signaling and contribute to the production of bioactive fat mediators that counter inflammation. They are widely used in cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, and other cognitive disorders. They also appear to amplify the antitumor efficacy of tamoxifen through the inhibition of proliferative and antiapoptotic pathways that that are influenced by estrogen-receptor signaling.

“This study showed that omega-3 supplementation can improve mood and sleep disorder in women suffering from breast cancer while they (are) managing with antihormone drugs. … this supplement can be proposed for the treatment of these patients,” wrote researchers led by Azadeh Moghaddas, MD, PhD, who is an associate professor of clinical pharmacy and pharmacy practice at Isfahan (Iran) University of Medical Sciences.

The study was made available as a preprint on ResearchSquare and has not yet been peer reviewed. It included 60 patients who were screened for baseline mood disorders using the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), then randomized to 2 mg omega-3 per day for 4 weeks, or placebo.

Studies have shown that omega-3 supplementation improves menopause and mood symptoms in postmenopausal women without cancer.

Omega-3 supplementation has neuroprotective effects and improved brain function and mood in rats, and a 2019 review suggested that the evidence is strong enough to warrant clinical studies.

To determine if the supplement was also safe and effective in women with breast cancer undergoing hormone therapy, the researchers analyzed data from 32 patients in the intervention group and 28 patients in the placebo group.

At 4 weeks of follow-up, patients in the intervention group had significantly lower values on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale (mean, 22.8 vs. 30.8; P < .001), Profile of Mood State (mean, 30.8 versus 39.5; P<.001), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (mean, 4.6 vs. 5.9; P = .04). There were no statistically significant changes in these values in the placebo group.

At 4 weeks, paired samples t-test comparisons between the intervention and the placebo groups revealed lower scores in the intervention group for mean scores in the PSQI subscales subjective sleep quality (0.8 vs. 1.4; P = .002), delay in falling asleep (1.1 vs. 1.6; P = .02), and sleep disturbances (0.8 vs. 1.1; P = .005).

There were no significant adverse reactions in either group.

The study is limited by its small sample size and the short follow-up period.

The study was funded by Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.

Hormone therapy in breast cancer patients can lead to mood and sleep disorders. A new randomized, controlled trial shows that omega-3 supplementation improves these symptoms. After 4 weeks of treatment, patients who received omega-3 reported better sleep, depression, and mood outcomes than those who received placebo.

Estrogen-receptor inhibitors are used to treat breast cancer with positive hormone receptors in combination with other therapies. However, the drugs can lead to long-term side effects, including hot flashes, night sweats, and changes to mood and sleep.

These side effects are often treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and some anticonvulsant drugs. Omega-3 supplements contain various polyunsaturated fatty acids, which influence cell signaling and contribute to the production of bioactive fat mediators that counter inflammation. They are widely used in cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, and other cognitive disorders. They also appear to amplify the antitumor efficacy of tamoxifen through the inhibition of proliferative and antiapoptotic pathways that that are influenced by estrogen-receptor signaling.

“This study showed that omega-3 supplementation can improve mood and sleep disorder in women suffering from breast cancer while they (are) managing with antihormone drugs. … this supplement can be proposed for the treatment of these patients,” wrote researchers led by Azadeh Moghaddas, MD, PhD, who is an associate professor of clinical pharmacy and pharmacy practice at Isfahan (Iran) University of Medical Sciences.

The study was made available as a preprint on ResearchSquare and has not yet been peer reviewed. It included 60 patients who were screened for baseline mood disorders using the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), then randomized to 2 mg omega-3 per day for 4 weeks, or placebo.

Studies have shown that omega-3 supplementation improves menopause and mood symptoms in postmenopausal women without cancer.

Omega-3 supplementation has neuroprotective effects and improved brain function and mood in rats, and a 2019 review suggested that the evidence is strong enough to warrant clinical studies.

To determine if the supplement was also safe and effective in women with breast cancer undergoing hormone therapy, the researchers analyzed data from 32 patients in the intervention group and 28 patients in the placebo group.

At 4 weeks of follow-up, patients in the intervention group had significantly lower values on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale (mean, 22.8 vs. 30.8; P < .001), Profile of Mood State (mean, 30.8 versus 39.5; P<.001), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (mean, 4.6 vs. 5.9; P = .04). There were no statistically significant changes in these values in the placebo group.

At 4 weeks, paired samples t-test comparisons between the intervention and the placebo groups revealed lower scores in the intervention group for mean scores in the PSQI subscales subjective sleep quality (0.8 vs. 1.4; P = .002), delay in falling asleep (1.1 vs. 1.6; P = .02), and sleep disturbances (0.8 vs. 1.1; P = .005).

There were no significant adverse reactions in either group.

The study is limited by its small sample size and the short follow-up period.

The study was funded by Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.

Hormone therapy in breast cancer patients can lead to mood and sleep disorders. A new randomized, controlled trial shows that omega-3 supplementation improves these symptoms. After 4 weeks of treatment, patients who received omega-3 reported better sleep, depression, and mood outcomes than those who received placebo.

Estrogen-receptor inhibitors are used to treat breast cancer with positive hormone receptors in combination with other therapies. However, the drugs can lead to long-term side effects, including hot flashes, night sweats, and changes to mood and sleep.

These side effects are often treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and some anticonvulsant drugs. Omega-3 supplements contain various polyunsaturated fatty acids, which influence cell signaling and contribute to the production of bioactive fat mediators that counter inflammation. They are widely used in cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, and other cognitive disorders. They also appear to amplify the antitumor efficacy of tamoxifen through the inhibition of proliferative and antiapoptotic pathways that that are influenced by estrogen-receptor signaling.

“This study showed that omega-3 supplementation can improve mood and sleep disorder in women suffering from breast cancer while they (are) managing with antihormone drugs. … this supplement can be proposed for the treatment of these patients,” wrote researchers led by Azadeh Moghaddas, MD, PhD, who is an associate professor of clinical pharmacy and pharmacy practice at Isfahan (Iran) University of Medical Sciences.

The study was made available as a preprint on ResearchSquare and has not yet been peer reviewed. It included 60 patients who were screened for baseline mood disorders using the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), then randomized to 2 mg omega-3 per day for 4 weeks, or placebo.

Studies have shown that omega-3 supplementation improves menopause and mood symptoms in postmenopausal women without cancer.

Omega-3 supplementation has neuroprotective effects and improved brain function and mood in rats, and a 2019 review suggested that the evidence is strong enough to warrant clinical studies.

To determine if the supplement was also safe and effective in women with breast cancer undergoing hormone therapy, the researchers analyzed data from 32 patients in the intervention group and 28 patients in the placebo group.

At 4 weeks of follow-up, patients in the intervention group had significantly lower values on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale (mean, 22.8 vs. 30.8; P < .001), Profile of Mood State (mean, 30.8 versus 39.5; P<.001), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (mean, 4.6 vs. 5.9; P = .04). There were no statistically significant changes in these values in the placebo group.

At 4 weeks, paired samples t-test comparisons between the intervention and the placebo groups revealed lower scores in the intervention group for mean scores in the PSQI subscales subjective sleep quality (0.8 vs. 1.4; P = .002), delay in falling asleep (1.1 vs. 1.6; P = .02), and sleep disturbances (0.8 vs. 1.1; P = .005).

There were no significant adverse reactions in either group.

The study is limited by its small sample size and the short follow-up period.

The study was funded by Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.

A new study has revealed potential cell-specific effects of the human Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib, including possible targets – such as intestinal inflammation – for future research and even for increasing the drug’s effects.

The work used both mice and human cell models to explore the drug’s effect in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The mouse models suggested that the drug’s pharmacokinetics may be affected by intestinal inflammation. The human cell models seem to identify equilibrative nucleoside transporters as the likely route of cellular uptake of tofacitinib; this mechanism appears to be upregulated during inflammation and could present a therapeutic target to bolster the drug’s effects.

“We identify intestinal inflammation as a decisive modulator of the systemic pharmacokinetics of tofacitinib in mice, which needs to be studied and confirmed in humans. Finally, we decipher an important membrane transport mechanism that regulates cellular uptake of tofacitinib into activated immune cells, suggesting a model that explains a preferred uptake of tofacitinib into activated immune cells and a potential starting point to interfere with and channel such an uptake,” wrote the authors, led by Bernhard Texler and Andreas Zollner, both with the Christian Doppler Laboratory for Mucosal Immunology at the Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria, who published the results in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

IBD-related inflammation likely involves multiple cytokine pathways. The JAK-signal transducers and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway is downstream to more than 50 cytokines and growth factors, so disruption of their activity by JAK-STAT inhibitors like tofacitinib could counter the effects of more than one cytokine at a time.

Tofacitinib received FDA approval for the treatment of ulcerative colitis in 2018, but the details of its mechanism of action against intestinal inflammation remain poorly understood. For example, despite its efficacy against UC, the drug doesn’t work for Crohn’s disease patients. That may be because the drug affects specific cell populations involved only in UC pathogenesis.

To better understand the drug’s pharmacokinetics, the researchers examined the effects of tofacitinib in cells isolated from human peripheral blood, as well as an experimental mouse model of colitis.

The drug inhibited proliferation of both naïve and memory cytotoxic and helper T cells. At higher concentrations, it had strong effects on innate immune system cells, including monocytes, macrophages, and human intestinal epithelial organoids. It promotes the anti-inflammatory M2 phenotype among monocytes and macrophages. The drug also inhibited the pro-inflammatory M1 phenotype. The researchers observed similar effects in the mouse model of colitis.

The investigators also linked equilibrative nucleoside transporters (ENTs) with uptake of tofacitinib, specifically as a mediating role. These membrane proteins transport nucleosides, nucleobases, and therapeutic analogs like tofacitinib, which mimics the nucleotide adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Targeted inhibitors could potentially influence this process.

The researchers created three-dimensional, in vitro colonic organoids using intestinal epithelial cells from UC patients and healthy human controls. In this model, TNF-alpha can lead to production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, but tofacitinib blocked this effect. That result suggests that intestinal epithelial cells are a previously unidentified tofacitinib target.

Although a large amount of work has been done on the pharmacokinetics of therapeutic antibodies used to treat IBD, the authors point out that little is known about tofacitinib. In a mouse model, the serum concentration of the drug increased after exposure to dextran sulfate sodium (DSS), which triggers an IBD-like condition, and the spike was higher during more intense inflammation. The finding was surprising, considering that therapeutic antibodies typically get eliminated through feces during inflammation. Mice treated with DSS versus control had similar levels of tofacitinib in both urine and the feces, suggesting that inflammation may somehow inhibit the enzymes that metabolize the drug.

The researchers also noted that uptake of tofacitinib into leukocytes increased following stimulation with lipopolysaccharide. Given its structural similarity to ATP, the researchers propose that tofacitinib may enter the cells through adenosine cell membrane transporters ENT1 and ENT2, and some evidence even suggested that the pathway may be strengthened in activated immune cells.

The study received funding from: the Christian Doppler Research Association; the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research, and Economy; and the National Foundation for Research, Technology, and Development. One author is receiving research support from AbbVie and Takeda under the framework of the Christian Doppler Research Society, but the remaining authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new study has revealed potential cell-specific effects of the human Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib, including possible targets – such as intestinal inflammation – for future research and even for increasing the drug’s effects.

The work used both mice and human cell models to explore the drug’s effect in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The mouse models suggested that the drug’s pharmacokinetics may be affected by intestinal inflammation. The human cell models seem to identify equilibrative nucleoside transporters as the likely route of cellular uptake of tofacitinib; this mechanism appears to be upregulated during inflammation and could present a therapeutic target to bolster the drug’s effects.

“We identify intestinal inflammation as a decisive modulator of the systemic pharmacokinetics of tofacitinib in mice, which needs to be studied and confirmed in humans. Finally, we decipher an important membrane transport mechanism that regulates cellular uptake of tofacitinib into activated immune cells, suggesting a model that explains a preferred uptake of tofacitinib into activated immune cells and a potential starting point to interfere with and channel such an uptake,” wrote the authors, led by Bernhard Texler and Andreas Zollner, both with the Christian Doppler Laboratory for Mucosal Immunology at the Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria, who published the results in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

IBD-related inflammation likely involves multiple cytokine pathways. The JAK-signal transducers and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway is downstream to more than 50 cytokines and growth factors, so disruption of their activity by JAK-STAT inhibitors like tofacitinib could counter the effects of more than one cytokine at a time.

Tofacitinib received FDA approval for the treatment of ulcerative colitis in 2018, but the details of its mechanism of action against intestinal inflammation remain poorly understood. For example, despite its efficacy against UC, the drug doesn’t work for Crohn’s disease patients. That may be because the drug affects specific cell populations involved only in UC pathogenesis.

To better understand the drug’s pharmacokinetics, the researchers examined the effects of tofacitinib in cells isolated from human peripheral blood, as well as an experimental mouse model of colitis.

The drug inhibited proliferation of both naïve and memory cytotoxic and helper T cells. At higher concentrations, it had strong effects on innate immune system cells, including monocytes, macrophages, and human intestinal epithelial organoids. It promotes the anti-inflammatory M2 phenotype among monocytes and macrophages. The drug also inhibited the pro-inflammatory M1 phenotype. The researchers observed similar effects in the mouse model of colitis.

The investigators also linked equilibrative nucleoside transporters (ENTs) with uptake of tofacitinib, specifically as a mediating role. These membrane proteins transport nucleosides, nucleobases, and therapeutic analogs like tofacitinib, which mimics the nucleotide adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Targeted inhibitors could potentially influence this process.

The researchers created three-dimensional, in vitro colonic organoids using intestinal epithelial cells from UC patients and healthy human controls. In this model, TNF-alpha can lead to production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, but tofacitinib blocked this effect. That result suggests that intestinal epithelial cells are a previously unidentified tofacitinib target.

Although a large amount of work has been done on the pharmacokinetics of therapeutic antibodies used to treat IBD, the authors point out that little is known about tofacitinib. In a mouse model, the serum concentration of the drug increased after exposure to dextran sulfate sodium (DSS), which triggers an IBD-like condition, and the spike was higher during more intense inflammation. The finding was surprising, considering that therapeutic antibodies typically get eliminated through feces during inflammation. Mice treated with DSS versus control had similar levels of tofacitinib in both urine and the feces, suggesting that inflammation may somehow inhibit the enzymes that metabolize the drug.

The researchers also noted that uptake of tofacitinib into leukocytes increased following stimulation with lipopolysaccharide. Given its structural similarity to ATP, the researchers propose that tofacitinib may enter the cells through adenosine cell membrane transporters ENT1 and ENT2, and some evidence even suggested that the pathway may be strengthened in activated immune cells.

The study received funding from: the Christian Doppler Research Association; the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research, and Economy; and the National Foundation for Research, Technology, and Development. One author is receiving research support from AbbVie and Takeda under the framework of the Christian Doppler Research Society, but the remaining authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new study has revealed potential cell-specific effects of the human Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib, including possible targets – such as intestinal inflammation – for future research and even for increasing the drug’s effects.

The work used both mice and human cell models to explore the drug’s effect in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The mouse models suggested that the drug’s pharmacokinetics may be affected by intestinal inflammation. The human cell models seem to identify equilibrative nucleoside transporters as the likely route of cellular uptake of tofacitinib; this mechanism appears to be upregulated during inflammation and could present a therapeutic target to bolster the drug’s effects.

“We identify intestinal inflammation as a decisive modulator of the systemic pharmacokinetics of tofacitinib in mice, which needs to be studied and confirmed in humans. Finally, we decipher an important membrane transport mechanism that regulates cellular uptake of tofacitinib into activated immune cells, suggesting a model that explains a preferred uptake of tofacitinib into activated immune cells and a potential starting point to interfere with and channel such an uptake,” wrote the authors, led by Bernhard Texler and Andreas Zollner, both with the Christian Doppler Laboratory for Mucosal Immunology at the Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria, who published the results in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

IBD-related inflammation likely involves multiple cytokine pathways. The JAK-signal transducers and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway is downstream to more than 50 cytokines and growth factors, so disruption of their activity by JAK-STAT inhibitors like tofacitinib could counter the effects of more than one cytokine at a time.

Tofacitinib received FDA approval for the treatment of ulcerative colitis in 2018, but the details of its mechanism of action against intestinal inflammation remain poorly understood. For example, despite its efficacy against UC, the drug doesn’t work for Crohn’s disease patients. That may be because the drug affects specific cell populations involved only in UC pathogenesis.

To better understand the drug’s pharmacokinetics, the researchers examined the effects of tofacitinib in cells isolated from human peripheral blood, as well as an experimental mouse model of colitis.

The drug inhibited proliferation of both naïve and memory cytotoxic and helper T cells. At higher concentrations, it had strong effects on innate immune system cells, including monocytes, macrophages, and human intestinal epithelial organoids. It promotes the anti-inflammatory M2 phenotype among monocytes and macrophages. The drug also inhibited the pro-inflammatory M1 phenotype. The researchers observed similar effects in the mouse model of colitis.

The investigators also linked equilibrative nucleoside transporters (ENTs) with uptake of tofacitinib, specifically as a mediating role. These membrane proteins transport nucleosides, nucleobases, and therapeutic analogs like tofacitinib, which mimics the nucleotide adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Targeted inhibitors could potentially influence this process.

The researchers created three-dimensional, in vitro colonic organoids using intestinal epithelial cells from UC patients and healthy human controls. In this model, TNF-alpha can lead to production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, but tofacitinib blocked this effect. That result suggests that intestinal epithelial cells are a previously unidentified tofacitinib target.

Although a large amount of work has been done on the pharmacokinetics of therapeutic antibodies used to treat IBD, the authors point out that little is known about tofacitinib. In a mouse model, the serum concentration of the drug increased after exposure to dextran sulfate sodium (DSS), which triggers an IBD-like condition, and the spike was higher during more intense inflammation. The finding was surprising, considering that therapeutic antibodies typically get eliminated through feces during inflammation. Mice treated with DSS versus control had similar levels of tofacitinib in both urine and the feces, suggesting that inflammation may somehow inhibit the enzymes that metabolize the drug.

The researchers also noted that uptake of tofacitinib into leukocytes increased following stimulation with lipopolysaccharide. Given its structural similarity to ATP, the researchers propose that tofacitinib may enter the cells through adenosine cell membrane transporters ENT1 and ENT2, and some evidence even suggested that the pathway may be strengthened in activated immune cells.

The study received funding from: the Christian Doppler Research Association; the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research, and Economy; and the National Foundation for Research, Technology, and Development. One author is receiving research support from AbbVie and Takeda under the framework of the Christian Doppler Research Society, but the remaining authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

Among individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a negative upper endoscopy is associated with decreased risk in incidence and mortality from gastrointestinal cancer. The benefit persisted through 5-10 years following the procedure.

The finding is similar to the survival benefit seen with colonoscopies and colorectal cancer, and may be attributable to endoscopic treatment of premalignant lesions.

“The relatively high incidence rate of upper gastrointestinal cancer in patients with GERD indicates that a one-time upper endoscopy may be beneficial,” wrote the authors, who were led by Dag Holmberg, MD, PhD, of the department of molecular medicine and surgery at the Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, both in Stockholm. The study was published in Gastroenterology.

GERD is the most frequent reason patients undergo an upper endoscopy, but the results are often negative. It is generally a benign condition, but can lead to Barrett’s esophagus, as well as esophageal and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma. Upper endoscopy can identify other esophageal cancers like gastric noncardia cancer and duodenal cancer, which may cause dyspepsia or GERD-like symptoms.

To determine the potential benefit of upper endoscopy, the researchers conducted a population-based, four-nation cohort study that included 1,062,740 individuals with GERD in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The data were gathered from national patient registries, cancer registries, and cause of death registries. The study encompassed data from 1979 through the end of 2018.

The median age was 58 years, and 52% of participants were women.

The researchers defined a negative endoscopy as no diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer within 6 months of the procedure; 69.3% of procedures were negative.

During the follow-up period, 0.34% of participants developed and 0.27% died of upper gastrointestinal cancer. Among those with negative endoscopies, 0.23% developed and 0.22% died from upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Participants with a negative endoscopy had a lower risk of being diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal cancer during the follow-up period (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.48). The reduction in risk was similar across age sexes and age groups, but among procedures performed after 2008, the risk reduction was even higher (aHR, 0.34; P < .001).

The effect was strongest in the first year after the procedure, but it persisted out to 5 years before returning to baseline risk levels.

A negative endoscopy was also associated with decreased mortality risk from upper gastrointestinal cancer versus those who hadn’t had an endoscopy (aHR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.37-0.42). The protective value continued for at least 10 years.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma developed in 0.12% of participants, and 0.10% died of the disease. Among those with a negative endoscopy, 0.09% developed adenocarcinoma, and 0.07% died (aHR vs. no upper endoscopy, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.30-0.37).

The rapid return to baseline risk was notable, and different from what occurs after negative colonoscopies. However, new tumors can readily form within one year, and the risk may reflect early malignant or premalignant lesions that were missed during the procedure.

In fact, a meta-analysis found that 11.3% of upper gastrointestinal cancers had escaped detection during an endoscopy in the previous 3 years before diagnosis, and case reviews of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer soon after an upper endoscopy usually reveal suspicious or indeterminate results that the endoscopist or pathologist missed.

Quality indicators for upper endoscopy include procedure time, rate of targeted biopsies, and computer-aided detection, but it isn’t clear what impact these measures have on outcomes. However, the greater risk reduction found with endoscopies performed more recently suggests that newer quality indicators and technological improvements may be improving outcomes.

The relatively low incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer in Western countries has discouraged widespread adoption of endoscopic screening, but the researchers point out that the risk of gastrointestinal cancer among individuals with GERD is similar to the risk of colorectal cancer in the 60-69 age group in the United States, for whom colonoscopy is recommended.

“The present study indicates that upper endoscopy may be beneficial for patients with GERD, but to make upper endoscopy screening more cost beneficial at its initiation, the target group may be limited to include patients at highest risk of cancer. Such previous cost-effectiveness studies have indicated that endoscopy is cost effective in men at aged 50 years or older with chronic GERD,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Swedish Research Council and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Among individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a negative upper endoscopy is associated with decreased risk in incidence and mortality from gastrointestinal cancer. The benefit persisted through 5-10 years following the procedure.

The finding is similar to the survival benefit seen with colonoscopies and colorectal cancer, and may be attributable to endoscopic treatment of premalignant lesions.

“The relatively high incidence rate of upper gastrointestinal cancer in patients with GERD indicates that a one-time upper endoscopy may be beneficial,” wrote the authors, who were led by Dag Holmberg, MD, PhD, of the department of molecular medicine and surgery at the Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, both in Stockholm. The study was published in Gastroenterology.

GERD is the most frequent reason patients undergo an upper endoscopy, but the results are often negative. It is generally a benign condition, but can lead to Barrett’s esophagus, as well as esophageal and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma. Upper endoscopy can identify other esophageal cancers like gastric noncardia cancer and duodenal cancer, which may cause dyspepsia or GERD-like symptoms.

To determine the potential benefit of upper endoscopy, the researchers conducted a population-based, four-nation cohort study that included 1,062,740 individuals with GERD in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The data were gathered from national patient registries, cancer registries, and cause of death registries. The study encompassed data from 1979 through the end of 2018.

The median age was 58 years, and 52% of participants were women.

The researchers defined a negative endoscopy as no diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer within 6 months of the procedure; 69.3% of procedures were negative.

During the follow-up period, 0.34% of participants developed and 0.27% died of upper gastrointestinal cancer. Among those with negative endoscopies, 0.23% developed and 0.22% died from upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Participants with a negative endoscopy had a lower risk of being diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal cancer during the follow-up period (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.48). The reduction in risk was similar across age sexes and age groups, but among procedures performed after 2008, the risk reduction was even higher (aHR, 0.34; P < .001).

The effect was strongest in the first year after the procedure, but it persisted out to 5 years before returning to baseline risk levels.

A negative endoscopy was also associated with decreased mortality risk from upper gastrointestinal cancer versus those who hadn’t had an endoscopy (aHR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.37-0.42). The protective value continued for at least 10 years.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma developed in 0.12% of participants, and 0.10% died of the disease. Among those with a negative endoscopy, 0.09% developed adenocarcinoma, and 0.07% died (aHR vs. no upper endoscopy, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.30-0.37).

The rapid return to baseline risk was notable, and different from what occurs after negative colonoscopies. However, new tumors can readily form within one year, and the risk may reflect early malignant or premalignant lesions that were missed during the procedure.

In fact, a meta-analysis found that 11.3% of upper gastrointestinal cancers had escaped detection during an endoscopy in the previous 3 years before diagnosis, and case reviews of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer soon after an upper endoscopy usually reveal suspicious or indeterminate results that the endoscopist or pathologist missed.

Quality indicators for upper endoscopy include procedure time, rate of targeted biopsies, and computer-aided detection, but it isn’t clear what impact these measures have on outcomes. However, the greater risk reduction found with endoscopies performed more recently suggests that newer quality indicators and technological improvements may be improving outcomes.

The relatively low incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer in Western countries has discouraged widespread adoption of endoscopic screening, but the researchers point out that the risk of gastrointestinal cancer among individuals with GERD is similar to the risk of colorectal cancer in the 60-69 age group in the United States, for whom colonoscopy is recommended.

“The present study indicates that upper endoscopy may be beneficial for patients with GERD, but to make upper endoscopy screening more cost beneficial at its initiation, the target group may be limited to include patients at highest risk of cancer. Such previous cost-effectiveness studies have indicated that endoscopy is cost effective in men at aged 50 years or older with chronic GERD,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Swedish Research Council and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Among individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a negative upper endoscopy is associated with decreased risk in incidence and mortality from gastrointestinal cancer. The benefit persisted through 5-10 years following the procedure.

The finding is similar to the survival benefit seen with colonoscopies and colorectal cancer, and may be attributable to endoscopic treatment of premalignant lesions.

“The relatively high incidence rate of upper gastrointestinal cancer in patients with GERD indicates that a one-time upper endoscopy may be beneficial,” wrote the authors, who were led by Dag Holmberg, MD, PhD, of the department of molecular medicine and surgery at the Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, both in Stockholm. The study was published in Gastroenterology.

GERD is the most frequent reason patients undergo an upper endoscopy, but the results are often negative. It is generally a benign condition, but can lead to Barrett’s esophagus, as well as esophageal and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma. Upper endoscopy can identify other esophageal cancers like gastric noncardia cancer and duodenal cancer, which may cause dyspepsia or GERD-like symptoms.

To determine the potential benefit of upper endoscopy, the researchers conducted a population-based, four-nation cohort study that included 1,062,740 individuals with GERD in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The data were gathered from national patient registries, cancer registries, and cause of death registries. The study encompassed data from 1979 through the end of 2018.

The median age was 58 years, and 52% of participants were women.

The researchers defined a negative endoscopy as no diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer within 6 months of the procedure; 69.3% of procedures were negative.

During the follow-up period, 0.34% of participants developed and 0.27% died of upper gastrointestinal cancer. Among those with negative endoscopies, 0.23% developed and 0.22% died from upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Participants with a negative endoscopy had a lower risk of being diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal cancer during the follow-up period (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.48). The reduction in risk was similar across age sexes and age groups, but among procedures performed after 2008, the risk reduction was even higher (aHR, 0.34; P < .001).

The effect was strongest in the first year after the procedure, but it persisted out to 5 years before returning to baseline risk levels.

A negative endoscopy was also associated with decreased mortality risk from upper gastrointestinal cancer versus those who hadn’t had an endoscopy (aHR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.37-0.42). The protective value continued for at least 10 years.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma developed in 0.12% of participants, and 0.10% died of the disease. Among those with a negative endoscopy, 0.09% developed adenocarcinoma, and 0.07% died (aHR vs. no upper endoscopy, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.30-0.37).

The rapid return to baseline risk was notable, and different from what occurs after negative colonoscopies. However, new tumors can readily form within one year, and the risk may reflect early malignant or premalignant lesions that were missed during the procedure.

In fact, a meta-analysis found that 11.3% of upper gastrointestinal cancers had escaped detection during an endoscopy in the previous 3 years before diagnosis, and case reviews of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer soon after an upper endoscopy usually reveal suspicious or indeterminate results that the endoscopist or pathologist missed.

Quality indicators for upper endoscopy include procedure time, rate of targeted biopsies, and computer-aided detection, but it isn’t clear what impact these measures have on outcomes. However, the greater risk reduction found with endoscopies performed more recently suggests that newer quality indicators and technological improvements may be improving outcomes.

The relatively low incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer in Western countries has discouraged widespread adoption of endoscopic screening, but the researchers point out that the risk of gastrointestinal cancer among individuals with GERD is similar to the risk of colorectal cancer in the 60-69 age group in the United States, for whom colonoscopy is recommended.

“The present study indicates that upper endoscopy may be beneficial for patients with GERD, but to make upper endoscopy screening more cost beneficial at its initiation, the target group may be limited to include patients at highest risk of cancer. Such previous cost-effectiveness studies have indicated that endoscopy is cost effective in men at aged 50 years or older with chronic GERD,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Swedish Research Council and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

The EXALT Model-D single-use duodenoscope is a cost-effective alternative to high-level disinfection (HLD) of reusable duodenoscopes, according to a new analysis.

The study compared the EXALT Model-D, HLD, culture-and-quarantine (CQ), and ethylene oxide sterilization (ETO). The results came from a simulated cohort of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to treat choledocholithiasis.

Although EXALT was the costliest option and HLD the cheapest, EXALT produced the most quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and allowed the hospital to decrease net costs, and sensitivity analysis showed that it was a better option than HLD over a range of willingness-to-pay values.

“When evaluating technologies based on cost-effectiveness and additionally in the context of TPT [transitional passthrough] or NTAP [new technology add-on payment], the EXALT approach meets typically used cost-effectiveness thresholds compared to all other evaluated strategies and should be considered for standard practice,” wrote the authors, who were led by Ananya Das, MD, of the Arizona Centers for Digestive Health, Gilbert. The study was published in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Duodenoscope contamination has resulted in outbreaks of various multidrug-resistant organisms in hospital settings, which has led to the publication of various reprocessing guidelines. Although many hospitals have adopted HLD protocols, others use additional or alternative reprocessing methods such as CQ or ETO. Despite these efforts, a recent Food and Drug Administration study found that 1.9%-22% of samples taken from duodenoscopes tested positive for bacteria of concern, such as pathogens. Those and other findings have led some to suggest that it would be best to move away from HLD, and instead employ sterilizable or disposable endoscopes.

In another study, The EXALT Model-D (Boston Scientific) had been shown to be a good alternative to standard reusable duodenoscopes.

The researchers used a Markov-model to determine the cost-effectiveness of EXALT Model-D against other approaches in a simulated cohort. They found that EXALT Model-D created the most QALYs (21.9265) at the highest cost ($3,000), and HLD the fewest QALYs (21.8938) at the lowest cost ($962). Compared with HLD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EXALT was $62,185, and $38,461 for ETO gas sterilization. CQ was dominated, indicating that it had a higher cost but was not more effective than HLD.

The researchers conducted a subanalysis of ERCP and Medicare patients to consider the recently approved TPT payment and the NTAP, in both hospital outpatient and inpatient settings. With TPT, EXALT had no cost after reimbursement, with a net saving of $962 per patient when compared with HLD, plus an increase in 0.033 QALYs (0.15%). The other procedures cost more and were less effective. With NTAP, EXALT had a net cost of $323 versus HLD, with a similar QALY benefit.

A Monte Carlo analysis of EXALT versus HLD found reductions in duodenoscope infection-related ICU admission (relative risk reduction, 0.996; 95% confidence interval, 0.936-1.0; number needed to treat, 79; 95% CI, 67-95) and death (RRR, 0.973; 95% CI, 0.552-0.998; number needed to treat, 556; 95% CI, 350-997).

In willingness-to-pay estimates from $50,000 to $100,000, EXALT was cost effective in 67.28% of trials with ICER under $100,000 per QALY.

The study did not consider medicolegal costs, which could lead to an underestimation of EXALT’s cost-effectiveness. The study also relied on available published information to determine cost per patient of hospital outbreaks in the United States and Europe since 2012, but the authors did not include costs of administrative sanctions, litigation, and poor publicity due to inconsistencies in the literature.

“While more research is needed to understand and quantify the determinants of the natural history after exposure to contaminated duodenoscopes, such as the risk of transmission and the subsequent development of serious clinical infections, this economic analysis demonstrates an approach using EXALT Model-D is cost effective in the U.S. health care system when compared to the currently utilized strategies of duodenoscope reprocessing,” the researchers concluded.

The study did not receive any funding. One of the authors is an employee and stockholder of Boston Scientific, which manufactures and markets EXALT. The other two authors have consulted for Boston Scientific.

The EXALT Model-D single-use duodenoscope is a cost-effective alternative to high-level disinfection (HLD) of reusable duodenoscopes, according to a new analysis.

The study compared the EXALT Model-D, HLD, culture-and-quarantine (CQ), and ethylene oxide sterilization (ETO). The results came from a simulated cohort of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to treat choledocholithiasis.

Although EXALT was the costliest option and HLD the cheapest, EXALT produced the most quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and allowed the hospital to decrease net costs, and sensitivity analysis showed that it was a better option than HLD over a range of willingness-to-pay values.

“When evaluating technologies based on cost-effectiveness and additionally in the context of TPT [transitional passthrough] or NTAP [new technology add-on payment], the EXALT approach meets typically used cost-effectiveness thresholds compared to all other evaluated strategies and should be considered for standard practice,” wrote the authors, who were led by Ananya Das, MD, of the Arizona Centers for Digestive Health, Gilbert. The study was published in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Duodenoscope contamination has resulted in outbreaks of various multidrug-resistant organisms in hospital settings, which has led to the publication of various reprocessing guidelines. Although many hospitals have adopted HLD protocols, others use additional or alternative reprocessing methods such as CQ or ETO. Despite these efforts, a recent Food and Drug Administration study found that 1.9%-22% of samples taken from duodenoscopes tested positive for bacteria of concern, such as pathogens. Those and other findings have led some to suggest that it would be best to move away from HLD, and instead employ sterilizable or disposable endoscopes.

In another study, The EXALT Model-D (Boston Scientific) had been shown to be a good alternative to standard reusable duodenoscopes.

The researchers used a Markov-model to determine the cost-effectiveness of EXALT Model-D against other approaches in a simulated cohort. They found that EXALT Model-D created the most QALYs (21.9265) at the highest cost ($3,000), and HLD the fewest QALYs (21.8938) at the lowest cost ($962). Compared with HLD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EXALT was $62,185, and $38,461 for ETO gas sterilization. CQ was dominated, indicating that it had a higher cost but was not more effective than HLD.

The researchers conducted a subanalysis of ERCP and Medicare patients to consider the recently approved TPT payment and the NTAP, in both hospital outpatient and inpatient settings. With TPT, EXALT had no cost after reimbursement, with a net saving of $962 per patient when compared with HLD, plus an increase in 0.033 QALYs (0.15%). The other procedures cost more and were less effective. With NTAP, EXALT had a net cost of $323 versus HLD, with a similar QALY benefit.

A Monte Carlo analysis of EXALT versus HLD found reductions in duodenoscope infection-related ICU admission (relative risk reduction, 0.996; 95% confidence interval, 0.936-1.0; number needed to treat, 79; 95% CI, 67-95) and death (RRR, 0.973; 95% CI, 0.552-0.998; number needed to treat, 556; 95% CI, 350-997).

In willingness-to-pay estimates from $50,000 to $100,000, EXALT was cost effective in 67.28% of trials with ICER under $100,000 per QALY.

The study did not consider medicolegal costs, which could lead to an underestimation of EXALT’s cost-effectiveness. The study also relied on available published information to determine cost per patient of hospital outbreaks in the United States and Europe since 2012, but the authors did not include costs of administrative sanctions, litigation, and poor publicity due to inconsistencies in the literature.

“While more research is needed to understand and quantify the determinants of the natural history after exposure to contaminated duodenoscopes, such as the risk of transmission and the subsequent development of serious clinical infections, this economic analysis demonstrates an approach using EXALT Model-D is cost effective in the U.S. health care system when compared to the currently utilized strategies of duodenoscope reprocessing,” the researchers concluded.

The study did not receive any funding. One of the authors is an employee and stockholder of Boston Scientific, which manufactures and markets EXALT. The other two authors have consulted for Boston Scientific.

The EXALT Model-D single-use duodenoscope is a cost-effective alternative to high-level disinfection (HLD) of reusable duodenoscopes, according to a new analysis.

The study compared the EXALT Model-D, HLD, culture-and-quarantine (CQ), and ethylene oxide sterilization (ETO). The results came from a simulated cohort of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to treat choledocholithiasis.

Although EXALT was the costliest option and HLD the cheapest, EXALT produced the most quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and allowed the hospital to decrease net costs, and sensitivity analysis showed that it was a better option than HLD over a range of willingness-to-pay values.

“When evaluating technologies based on cost-effectiveness and additionally in the context of TPT [transitional passthrough] or NTAP [new technology add-on payment], the EXALT approach meets typically used cost-effectiveness thresholds compared to all other evaluated strategies and should be considered for standard practice,” wrote the authors, who were led by Ananya Das, MD, of the Arizona Centers for Digestive Health, Gilbert. The study was published in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Duodenoscope contamination has resulted in outbreaks of various multidrug-resistant organisms in hospital settings, which has led to the publication of various reprocessing guidelines. Although many hospitals have adopted HLD protocols, others use additional or alternative reprocessing methods such as CQ or ETO. Despite these efforts, a recent Food and Drug Administration study found that 1.9%-22% of samples taken from duodenoscopes tested positive for bacteria of concern, such as pathogens. Those and other findings have led some to suggest that it would be best to move away from HLD, and instead employ sterilizable or disposable endoscopes.

In another study, The EXALT Model-D (Boston Scientific) had been shown to be a good alternative to standard reusable duodenoscopes.

The researchers used a Markov-model to determine the cost-effectiveness of EXALT Model-D against other approaches in a simulated cohort. They found that EXALT Model-D created the most QALYs (21.9265) at the highest cost ($3,000), and HLD the fewest QALYs (21.8938) at the lowest cost ($962). Compared with HLD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EXALT was $62,185, and $38,461 for ETO gas sterilization. CQ was dominated, indicating that it had a higher cost but was not more effective than HLD.

The researchers conducted a subanalysis of ERCP and Medicare patients to consider the recently approved TPT payment and the NTAP, in both hospital outpatient and inpatient settings. With TPT, EXALT had no cost after reimbursement, with a net saving of $962 per patient when compared with HLD, plus an increase in 0.033 QALYs (0.15%). The other procedures cost more and were less effective. With NTAP, EXALT had a net cost of $323 versus HLD, with a similar QALY benefit.

A Monte Carlo analysis of EXALT versus HLD found reductions in duodenoscope infection-related ICU admission (relative risk reduction, 0.996; 95% confidence interval, 0.936-1.0; number needed to treat, 79; 95% CI, 67-95) and death (RRR, 0.973; 95% CI, 0.552-0.998; number needed to treat, 556; 95% CI, 350-997).

In willingness-to-pay estimates from $50,000 to $100,000, EXALT was cost effective in 67.28% of trials with ICER under $100,000 per QALY.

The study did not consider medicolegal costs, which could lead to an underestimation of EXALT’s cost-effectiveness. The study also relied on available published information to determine cost per patient of hospital outbreaks in the United States and Europe since 2012, but the authors did not include costs of administrative sanctions, litigation, and poor publicity due to inconsistencies in the literature.

“While more research is needed to understand and quantify the determinants of the natural history after exposure to contaminated duodenoscopes, such as the risk of transmission and the subsequent development of serious clinical infections, this economic analysis demonstrates an approach using EXALT Model-D is cost effective in the U.S. health care system when compared to the currently utilized strategies of duodenoscope reprocessing,” the researchers concluded.

The study did not receive any funding. One of the authors is an employee and stockholder of Boston Scientific, which manufactures and markets EXALT. The other two authors have consulted for Boston Scientific.

In HER2-positive gastric cancer, the addition of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) to trastuzumab (Herceptin, Roche) and platinum-based chemotherapy led to a significant improvement in overall response rate, according to results from the first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-811 phase 3, randomized clinical trial.

The results of the trial, initially presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and now published in Nature, were instrumental in the May 2021 FDA approval of pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab along with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy for the first-line treatment locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Pembrolizumab is an anti–programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, which blocks a key immune escape mechanism employed by cancer cells. Trastuzumab causes an immune response that leads to HER2 internalization and cellular recycling, as well as stimulating HER2-specific T cells. Death of cancer cells from platinum-containing chemotherapy stimulates dendritic cells, which in turn promote tumor-specific T cells.

In her studies of immunotherapy and gastric cancer, lead author Yelena Janjigian, MD, chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, noticed a trend in HER2-positive patients. “PD-L1 overexpression actually can occur and continue to increase while the patient is on trastuzumab as a mode of resistance,” Dr. Janjigian said in an interview.

That observation prompted the idea to combine a PD-L1 inhibitor in a phase 3 clinical trial. The results were striking. “I’ve never seen such depth of response. You could see responses as early as week 3 – after just one dose – and no one’s ever shown that before,” Dr. Janjigian said.

The new study randomized 264 patients to receive pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with trastuzumab plus fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy. In the intention-to-treat population, 81.3% of the population was male, and the primary tumor site was the stomach in 68.4%. The pembrolizumab group had a significantly higher objective response rate than the placebo group (74.4% vs. 51.9%; P = .00006).

The median decrease in lesion size was 65% in the pembrolizumab group and 49% in the placebo group. 32.3% of the pembrolizumab group had at least an 80% decrease in lesion size, versus 14.8% in the placebo group. The pembrolizumab group had more complete responses (11.3% vs. 3.1%).

The message from this is that biomarkers are critical, even if actionable ones are rare, Dr. Janjigian said. “Even though it feels like it’s only 10% or 5% of population, you start chipping away at it. How do we cure cancer? We cure it one percentage at a time through biomarker testing.”

Writing in a commentary published with the study, Myriam Chalabi, MD, a physician specializing in gastrointestinal oncology with the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, described the findings as “impressive in terms of the tumor responses.” But she was cautious saying data on progression-free survival and overall survival are needed to understand how well the proposed treatment would work long term.

“Given that PD-1 blockade seems to complement trastuzumab and chemotherapy for the treatment of HER2-positive gastric cancers, Janjigian and colleagues’ study has moved the field forward, and their findings could be the next, long-awaited development in the treatment of these cancers,” she wrote.

A key limitation is that the study looked at overall response rate, rather than the overall survival. The latter results should come within a year, Dr. Janjigian said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Janjigian has received research funding from Merck, Rgenix, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly, and has served on advisory boards for Rgenix, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Imugene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi-Sankyo, Zymeworks, SeaGen, Basilea Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca. She has equity in Rgenix.

In HER2-positive gastric cancer, the addition of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) to trastuzumab (Herceptin, Roche) and platinum-based chemotherapy led to a significant improvement in overall response rate, according to results from the first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-811 phase 3, randomized clinical trial.

The results of the trial, initially presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and now published in Nature, were instrumental in the May 2021 FDA approval of pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab along with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy for the first-line treatment locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Pembrolizumab is an anti–programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, which blocks a key immune escape mechanism employed by cancer cells. Trastuzumab causes an immune response that leads to HER2 internalization and cellular recycling, as well as stimulating HER2-specific T cells. Death of cancer cells from platinum-containing chemotherapy stimulates dendritic cells, which in turn promote tumor-specific T cells.

In her studies of immunotherapy and gastric cancer, lead author Yelena Janjigian, MD, chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, noticed a trend in HER2-positive patients. “PD-L1 overexpression actually can occur and continue to increase while the patient is on trastuzumab as a mode of resistance,” Dr. Janjigian said in an interview.

That observation prompted the idea to combine a PD-L1 inhibitor in a phase 3 clinical trial. The results were striking. “I’ve never seen such depth of response. You could see responses as early as week 3 – after just one dose – and no one’s ever shown that before,” Dr. Janjigian said.

The new study randomized 264 patients to receive pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with trastuzumab plus fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy. In the intention-to-treat population, 81.3% of the population was male, and the primary tumor site was the stomach in 68.4%. The pembrolizumab group had a significantly higher objective response rate than the placebo group (74.4% vs. 51.9%; P = .00006).

The median decrease in lesion size was 65% in the pembrolizumab group and 49% in the placebo group. 32.3% of the pembrolizumab group had at least an 80% decrease in lesion size, versus 14.8% in the placebo group. The pembrolizumab group had more complete responses (11.3% vs. 3.1%).

The message from this is that biomarkers are critical, even if actionable ones are rare, Dr. Janjigian said. “Even though it feels like it’s only 10% or 5% of population, you start chipping away at it. How do we cure cancer? We cure it one percentage at a time through biomarker testing.”

Writing in a commentary published with the study, Myriam Chalabi, MD, a physician specializing in gastrointestinal oncology with the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, described the findings as “impressive in terms of the tumor responses.” But she was cautious saying data on progression-free survival and overall survival are needed to understand how well the proposed treatment would work long term.

“Given that PD-1 blockade seems to complement trastuzumab and chemotherapy for the treatment of HER2-positive gastric cancers, Janjigian and colleagues’ study has moved the field forward, and their findings could be the next, long-awaited development in the treatment of these cancers,” she wrote.

A key limitation is that the study looked at overall response rate, rather than the overall survival. The latter results should come within a year, Dr. Janjigian said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Janjigian has received research funding from Merck, Rgenix, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly, and has served on advisory boards for Rgenix, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Imugene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi-Sankyo, Zymeworks, SeaGen, Basilea Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca. She has equity in Rgenix.

In HER2-positive gastric cancer, the addition of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) to trastuzumab (Herceptin, Roche) and platinum-based chemotherapy led to a significant improvement in overall response rate, according to results from the first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-811 phase 3, randomized clinical trial.

The results of the trial, initially presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and now published in Nature, were instrumental in the May 2021 FDA approval of pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab along with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy for the first-line treatment locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Pembrolizumab is an anti–programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, which blocks a key immune escape mechanism employed by cancer cells. Trastuzumab causes an immune response that leads to HER2 internalization and cellular recycling, as well as stimulating HER2-specific T cells. Death of cancer cells from platinum-containing chemotherapy stimulates dendritic cells, which in turn promote tumor-specific T cells.

In her studies of immunotherapy and gastric cancer, lead author Yelena Janjigian, MD, chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, noticed a trend in HER2-positive patients. “PD-L1 overexpression actually can occur and continue to increase while the patient is on trastuzumab as a mode of resistance,” Dr. Janjigian said in an interview.

That observation prompted the idea to combine a PD-L1 inhibitor in a phase 3 clinical trial. The results were striking. “I’ve never seen such depth of response. You could see responses as early as week 3 – after just one dose – and no one’s ever shown that before,” Dr. Janjigian said.

The new study randomized 264 patients to receive pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with trastuzumab plus fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy. In the intention-to-treat population, 81.3% of the population was male, and the primary tumor site was the stomach in 68.4%. The pembrolizumab group had a significantly higher objective response rate than the placebo group (74.4% vs. 51.9%; P = .00006).

The median decrease in lesion size was 65% in the pembrolizumab group and 49% in the placebo group. 32.3% of the pembrolizumab group had at least an 80% decrease in lesion size, versus 14.8% in the placebo group. The pembrolizumab group had more complete responses (11.3% vs. 3.1%).

The message from this is that biomarkers are critical, even if actionable ones are rare, Dr. Janjigian said. “Even though it feels like it’s only 10% or 5% of population, you start chipping away at it. How do we cure cancer? We cure it one percentage at a time through biomarker testing.”

Writing in a commentary published with the study, Myriam Chalabi, MD, a physician specializing in gastrointestinal oncology with the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, described the findings as “impressive in terms of the tumor responses.” But she was cautious saying data on progression-free survival and overall survival are needed to understand how well the proposed treatment would work long term.

“Given that PD-1 blockade seems to complement trastuzumab and chemotherapy for the treatment of HER2-positive gastric cancers, Janjigian and colleagues’ study has moved the field forward, and their findings could be the next, long-awaited development in the treatment of these cancers,” she wrote.

A key limitation is that the study looked at overall response rate, rather than the overall survival. The latter results should come within a year, Dr. Janjigian said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Janjigian has received research funding from Merck, Rgenix, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly, and has served on advisory boards for Rgenix, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Imugene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi-Sankyo, Zymeworks, SeaGen, Basilea Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca. She has equity in Rgenix.

Gastroenterology centers with higher adenoma detection rates (ADR) with the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) had a lower long-term colorectal cancer incidence and lower CRC mortality among its patients, according to a new study.

Detection and removal of polyps during colonoscopy screening is vital to the prevention of CRC, and previous research has shown that centers with higher detection rates are associated with lower rates of CRC diagnosis within 3-5 years after a negative screen.

In Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Amanda J. Cross, PhD, a professor of cancer epidemiology at Imperial College London, published an analysis of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial, which found that FS screening between the ages 55 and 64 led to a 35% reduction of CRC incidence and a 41% reduction in CRC over a mean follow-up 17.1 years. The screening program had no apparent effect on incidence and mortality of proximal cancers. The researchers speculated that this was because few patients underwent proximal examination during follow-up colonoscopy.

“Considering only 5% of participants were referred for follow-up colonoscopy and 4% were referred for surveillance, we conclude that the improved detection of adenomas at FS has a measurable impact on long-term distal CRC outcomes, even when there is infrequent colonoscopy use. It is possible that high detectors also were more adept at polypectomy than intermediate or low detectors, and achieved more complete resection of detected lesions,” the authors wrote.

The researchers analyzed data from 38,550 patients who underwent screening at 14 U.K. hospitals, between 1994 and 1999. A single endoscopist was responsible for nearly all FS screens performed at each participating hospital.

The mean patient age was 60 years, and 49% were male. The researchers calculated ADRs for each center using the percentage of patients who had at least one adenoma detected during screening, which included any distal adenomas discovered during follow-up colonoscopy.

The ADR overall was 12%. The researchers used multivariate logistic regression to rank individual centers as having high (15%; five centers), intermediate (12%; four centers), or low (9%; four centers) detection rates.

There was a strong association between detection rates of small adenomas and a center’s ADR (P < .001), but not for large or advanced adenomas. In the high-detector group, 6.2% of patients screened were referred to colonoscopy versus 4.5% in the intermediate group and 4.5% in the low group. About half of colonoscopies were conducted by the same endoscopist who performed FS.

During follow-up, the distal CRC incidence was 1.5% in the high ADR group, 1.4% in the intermediate group, and 1.7% in the low group, and mortality rates were 0.4%, 0.4%, and 0.5%, respectively.

Compared with unscreened controls, risk of distal CRC was lowest among individuals who underwent screening in the high ADR group (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.42), followed by the intermediate group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59), and the low ADR group (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.68; P < .05 for all).

Compared with unscreened controls, CRC mortality was lower among individuals who underwent screening in the high ADR group (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37), followed by the intermediate group (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.55), and the low ADR group (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.86; P < .05 for between group differences).

All-site CRC incidence followed similar trends, with the lowest risks in the high ADR group (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.67), followed by intermediate ADR (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77) and low ADR groups (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85; between group differences not statistically significant).

All-site CRC mortality was lowest in the high ADR group (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.69), followed by the intermediate group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.73), and the low ADR group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.92; between-group differences not statistically significant).

The number needed to screen (NNS) to prevent one CRC diagnosis was 78 in the high ADR group (95% CI, 61-106), 103 in the intermediate group (95% CI, 74-171), and 125 in the low ADR group (95% CI, 82-256). The NNS to prevent one CRC death was 226 (95% CI, 159-387), 247 (95% CI, 165-490), and 349 respectively (95% CI, 192-1,904).

However, the researchers also pointed out that efforts to increase ADR could result in more complications, such as perforations or gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as more frequent diagnosis and recommended surveillance for diminutive adenomas.

The study is limited by the fact that endoscopists were either gastroenterologists or surgeons and the study population was made up of individuals who desired screening.

The UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Gastroenterology centers with higher adenoma detection rates (ADR) with the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) had a lower long-term colorectal cancer incidence and lower CRC mortality among its patients, according to a new study.

Detection and removal of polyps during colonoscopy screening is vital to the prevention of CRC, and previous research has shown that centers with higher detection rates are associated with lower rates of CRC diagnosis within 3-5 years after a negative screen.

In Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Amanda J. Cross, PhD, a professor of cancer epidemiology at Imperial College London, published an analysis of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial, which found that FS screening between the ages 55 and 64 led to a 35% reduction of CRC incidence and a 41% reduction in CRC over a mean follow-up 17.1 years. The screening program had no apparent effect on incidence and mortality of proximal cancers. The researchers speculated that this was because few patients underwent proximal examination during follow-up colonoscopy.

“Considering only 5% of participants were referred for follow-up colonoscopy and 4% were referred for surveillance, we conclude that the improved detection of adenomas at FS has a measurable impact on long-term distal CRC outcomes, even when there is infrequent colonoscopy use. It is possible that high detectors also were more adept at polypectomy than intermediate or low detectors, and achieved more complete resection of detected lesions,” the authors wrote.

The researchers analyzed data from 38,550 patients who underwent screening at 14 U.K. hospitals, between 1994 and 1999. A single endoscopist was responsible for nearly all FS screens performed at each participating hospital.

The mean patient age was 60 years, and 49% were male. The researchers calculated ADRs for each center using the percentage of patients who had at least one adenoma detected during screening, which included any distal adenomas discovered during follow-up colonoscopy.

The ADR overall was 12%. The researchers used multivariate logistic regression to rank individual centers as having high (15%; five centers), intermediate (12%; four centers), or low (9%; four centers) detection rates.

There was a strong association between detection rates of small adenomas and a center’s ADR (P < .001), but not for large or advanced adenomas. In the high-detector group, 6.2% of patients screened were referred to colonoscopy versus 4.5% in the intermediate group and 4.5% in the low group. About half of colonoscopies were conducted by the same endoscopist who performed FS.

During follow-up, the distal CRC incidence was 1.5% in the high ADR group, 1.4% in the intermediate group, and 1.7% in the low group, and mortality rates were 0.4%, 0.4%, and 0.5%, respectively.

Compared with unscreened controls, risk of distal CRC was lowest among individuals who underwent screening in the high ADR group (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.42), followed by the intermediate group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59), and the low ADR group (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.68; P < .05 for all).

Compared with unscreened controls, CRC mortality was lower among individuals who underwent screening in the high ADR group (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37), followed by the intermediate group (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.55), and the low ADR group (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.86; P < .05 for between group differences).

All-site CRC incidence followed similar trends, with the lowest risks in the high ADR group (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.67), followed by intermediate ADR (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77) and low ADR groups (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85; between group differences not statistically significant).

All-site CRC mortality was lowest in the high ADR group (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.69), followed by the intermediate group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.73), and the low ADR group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.92; between-group differences not statistically significant).

The number needed to screen (NNS) to prevent one CRC diagnosis was 78 in the high ADR group (95% CI, 61-106), 103 in the intermediate group (95% CI, 74-171), and 125 in the low ADR group (95% CI, 82-256). The NNS to prevent one CRC death was 226 (95% CI, 159-387), 247 (95% CI, 165-490), and 349 respectively (95% CI, 192-1,904).

However, the researchers also pointed out that efforts to increase ADR could result in more complications, such as perforations or gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as more frequent diagnosis and recommended surveillance for diminutive adenomas.

The study is limited by the fact that endoscopists were either gastroenterologists or surgeons and the study population was made up of individuals who desired screening.

The UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Gastroenterology centers with higher adenoma detection rates (ADR) with the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) had a lower long-term colorectal cancer incidence and lower CRC mortality among its patients, according to a new study.

Detection and removal of polyps during colonoscopy screening is vital to the prevention of CRC, and previous research has shown that centers with higher detection rates are associated with lower rates of CRC diagnosis within 3-5 years after a negative screen.

In Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Amanda J. Cross, PhD, a professor of cancer epidemiology at Imperial College London, published an analysis of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial, which found that FS screening between the ages 55 and 64 led to a 35% reduction of CRC incidence and a 41% reduction in CRC over a mean follow-up 17.1 years. The screening program had no apparent effect on incidence and mortality of proximal cancers. The researchers speculated that this was because few patients underwent proximal examination during follow-up colonoscopy.

“Considering only 5% of participants were referred for follow-up colonoscopy and 4% were referred for surveillance, we conclude that the improved detection of adenomas at FS has a measurable impact on long-term distal CRC outcomes, even when there is infrequent colonoscopy use. It is possible that high detectors also were more adept at polypectomy than intermediate or low detectors, and achieved more complete resection of detected lesions,” the authors wrote.

The researchers analyzed data from 38,550 patients who underwent screening at 14 U.K. hospitals, between 1994 and 1999. A single endoscopist was responsible for nearly all FS screens performed at each participating hospital.

The mean patient age was 60 years, and 49% were male. The researchers calculated ADRs for each center using the percentage of patients who had at least one adenoma detected during screening, which included any distal adenomas discovered during follow-up colonoscopy.

The ADR overall was 12%. The researchers used multivariate logistic regression to rank individual centers as having high (15%; five centers), intermediate (12%; four centers), or low (9%; four centers) detection rates.

There was a strong association between detection rates of small adenomas and a center’s ADR (P < .001), but not for large or advanced adenomas. In the high-detector group, 6.2% of patients screened were referred to colonoscopy versus 4.5% in the intermediate group and 4.5% in the low group. About half of colonoscopies were conducted by the same endoscopist who performed FS.

During follow-up, the distal CRC incidence was 1.5% in the high ADR group, 1.4% in the intermediate group, and 1.7% in the low group, and mortality rates were 0.4%, 0.4%, and 0.5%, respectively.

Compared with unscreened controls, risk of distal CRC was lowest among individuals who underwent screening in the high ADR group (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.42), followed by the intermediate group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59), and the low ADR group (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.68; P < .05 for all).

Compared with unscreened controls, CRC mortality was lower among individuals who underwent screening in the high ADR group (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37), followed by the intermediate group (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.55), and the low ADR group (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.86; P < .05 for between group differences).

All-site CRC incidence followed similar trends, with the lowest risks in the high ADR group (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.67), followed by intermediate ADR (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77) and low ADR groups (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85; between group differences not statistically significant).

All-site CRC mortality was lowest in the high ADR group (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.69), followed by the intermediate group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.73), and the low ADR group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.92; between-group differences not statistically significant).

The number needed to screen (NNS) to prevent one CRC diagnosis was 78 in the high ADR group (95% CI, 61-106), 103 in the intermediate group (95% CI, 74-171), and 125 in the low ADR group (95% CI, 82-256). The NNS to prevent one CRC death was 226 (95% CI, 159-387), 247 (95% CI, 165-490), and 349 respectively (95% CI, 192-1,904).

However, the researchers also pointed out that efforts to increase ADR could result in more complications, such as perforations or gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as more frequent diagnosis and recommended surveillance for diminutive adenomas.

The study is limited by the fact that endoscopists were either gastroenterologists or surgeons and the study population was made up of individuals who desired screening.

The UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A home-based tunneled peritoneal catheter (PeCa) drainage system provided significant relief for patients with refractory ascites who were not candidates for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS).

For these patients, the current standard of care is repeated large volume paracentesis, but this can require frequent hospital trips that can be costly and onerous.

The PeCa system consists of one part that lays in the peritoneal cavity, then a tunnel through subcutaneous tissue and an external port where the patient can connect drainage bags. It has been tested and found to provide relief for patients with malignant ascites, but there is little data available for patients with cirrhosis, according to Tammo Lambert Tergast, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Dr. Tergast is a resident in the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

“Patients with refractory ascites have a very high risk for rehospitalization, AKI [acute kidney injury], and death. Our data indicate that PeCa could be a valuable new treatment option for patients with refractory ascites and contraindication for TIPS. However, the risk for hyponatremia and AKI has to be considered and further explored,” said Dr. Tergast during his presentation.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed outcomes in 152 patients with refractory ascites who received a PeCa implant and 71 patients who received standard of care (SOC), which included repeated large volume paracentesis and albumin. The median explant-free survival was 74 days, and just under 50% were explant free at 90 days.

52 patients had the PeCa system removed: 54% because of an infection, 15% because of liver transplant, 12% because of dysfunction, and 10% because of accidental removal.

Factors associated with 90-day survival included PeCa (hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .05) and each point of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (HR, 1.16; P = .001). There was a trend toward a higher incidence of hyponatremia in the PeCa group (P = .09).

Hospitalizations were more common in the PeCa group (P = .035), but there was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups. Reasons for hospitalization included spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP; 18% in PeCa vs. 8% of SOC), hyponatremia (10% vs. 0%), and infections other than SBP (4% and 16%).

A propensity score–matched analysis that included age, history of SBP, platelet count, serum albumin levels, and MELD score found no significant differences between the two groups, but there were trends in the PeCa group towards higher 90-day survival (P = .16) and a higher frequency of acute kidney injury (P = .08).

Although the appropriate patient population for the system would be small, “once you get to refractory ascites, management of these individuals is really, really challenging, especially people that had contraindications to a TIPS procedure. Anything that you can do to improve their quality of life and help with management is definitely desired,” said Nancy Reau, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Reau is chief of the section of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The study found little difference in infection risk between the PeCa and standard of care group, but there was a trend toward more hyponatremia in the PeCa group. That could be caused by reduced contact with the health system, according to Dr. Reau, since physicians may be keeping an eye on electrolytes, diuretics, and other factors during paracentesis visits. “But as long as you’re setting up home nursing or some other way to make sure that you’re managing them appropriately, that should be something that is overcome with awareness,” said Dr. Reau.

During the question-and-answer following the presentation, Dr. Tergast was asked about the heightened frequency of hospitalizations in the PeCa group. He posited that the observation may be caused by the retrospective nature of the study. His center is a tertiary care center, which accepts referrals from all over Germany. When a problem occurs with a PeCa, patients often get referred back to the tertiary center, leading to a higher number of hospitalizations observed in that group. “So this might be a bias in the analysis,” he said.

“I think if we can optimize the treatment after discharge, we can also minimize the rehospitalization in these patients. Rehospitalization rate because of ascites was quite low,” said Dr. Tergast.

Dr. Tergast and Dr. Reau have no relevant financial disclosures.

A home-based tunneled peritoneal catheter (PeCa) drainage system provided significant relief for patients with refractory ascites who were not candidates for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS).

For these patients, the current standard of care is repeated large volume paracentesis, but this can require frequent hospital trips that can be costly and onerous.

The PeCa system consists of one part that lays in the peritoneal cavity, then a tunnel through subcutaneous tissue and an external port where the patient can connect drainage bags. It has been tested and found to provide relief for patients with malignant ascites, but there is little data available for patients with cirrhosis, according to Tammo Lambert Tergast, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Dr. Tergast is a resident in the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

“Patients with refractory ascites have a very high risk for rehospitalization, AKI [acute kidney injury], and death. Our data indicate that PeCa could be a valuable new treatment option for patients with refractory ascites and contraindication for TIPS. However, the risk for hyponatremia and AKI has to be considered and further explored,” said Dr. Tergast during his presentation.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed outcomes in 152 patients with refractory ascites who received a PeCa implant and 71 patients who received standard of care (SOC), which included repeated large volume paracentesis and albumin. The median explant-free survival was 74 days, and just under 50% were explant free at 90 days.

52 patients had the PeCa system removed: 54% because of an infection, 15% because of liver transplant, 12% because of dysfunction, and 10% because of accidental removal.

Factors associated with 90-day survival included PeCa (hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .05) and each point of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (HR, 1.16; P = .001). There was a trend toward a higher incidence of hyponatremia in the PeCa group (P = .09).

Hospitalizations were more common in the PeCa group (P = .035), but there was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups. Reasons for hospitalization included spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP; 18% in PeCa vs. 8% of SOC), hyponatremia (10% vs. 0%), and infections other than SBP (4% and 16%).

A propensity score–matched analysis that included age, history of SBP, platelet count, serum albumin levels, and MELD score found no significant differences between the two groups, but there were trends in the PeCa group towards higher 90-day survival (P = .16) and a higher frequency of acute kidney injury (P = .08).

Although the appropriate patient population for the system would be small, “once you get to refractory ascites, management of these individuals is really, really challenging, especially people that had contraindications to a TIPS procedure. Anything that you can do to improve their quality of life and help with management is definitely desired,” said Nancy Reau, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Reau is chief of the section of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The study found little difference in infection risk between the PeCa and standard of care group, but there was a trend toward more hyponatremia in the PeCa group. That could be caused by reduced contact with the health system, according to Dr. Reau, since physicians may be keeping an eye on electrolytes, diuretics, and other factors during paracentesis visits. “But as long as you’re setting up home nursing or some other way to make sure that you’re managing them appropriately, that should be something that is overcome with awareness,” said Dr. Reau.

During the question-and-answer following the presentation, Dr. Tergast was asked about the heightened frequency of hospitalizations in the PeCa group. He posited that the observation may be caused by the retrospective nature of the study. His center is a tertiary care center, which accepts referrals from all over Germany. When a problem occurs with a PeCa, patients often get referred back to the tertiary center, leading to a higher number of hospitalizations observed in that group. “So this might be a bias in the analysis,” he said.

“I think if we can optimize the treatment after discharge, we can also minimize the rehospitalization in these patients. Rehospitalization rate because of ascites was quite low,” said Dr. Tergast.

Dr. Tergast and Dr. Reau have no relevant financial disclosures.

A home-based tunneled peritoneal catheter (PeCa) drainage system provided significant relief for patients with refractory ascites who were not candidates for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS).

For these patients, the current standard of care is repeated large volume paracentesis, but this can require frequent hospital trips that can be costly and onerous.

The PeCa system consists of one part that lays in the peritoneal cavity, then a tunnel through subcutaneous tissue and an external port where the patient can connect drainage bags. It has been tested and found to provide relief for patients with malignant ascites, but there is little data available for patients with cirrhosis, according to Tammo Lambert Tergast, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Dr. Tergast is a resident in the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

“Patients with refractory ascites have a very high risk for rehospitalization, AKI [acute kidney injury], and death. Our data indicate that PeCa could be a valuable new treatment option for patients with refractory ascites and contraindication for TIPS. However, the risk for hyponatremia and AKI has to be considered and further explored,” said Dr. Tergast during his presentation.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed outcomes in 152 patients with refractory ascites who received a PeCa implant and 71 patients who received standard of care (SOC), which included repeated large volume paracentesis and albumin. The median explant-free survival was 74 days, and just under 50% were explant free at 90 days.

52 patients had the PeCa system removed: 54% because of an infection, 15% because of liver transplant, 12% because of dysfunction, and 10% because of accidental removal.

Factors associated with 90-day survival included PeCa (hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .05) and each point of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (HR, 1.16; P = .001). There was a trend toward a higher incidence of hyponatremia in the PeCa group (P = .09).

Hospitalizations were more common in the PeCa group (P = .035), but there was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups. Reasons for hospitalization included spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP; 18% in PeCa vs. 8% of SOC), hyponatremia (10% vs. 0%), and infections other than SBP (4% and 16%).

A propensity score–matched analysis that included age, history of SBP, platelet count, serum albumin levels, and MELD score found no significant differences between the two groups, but there were trends in the PeCa group towards higher 90-day survival (P = .16) and a higher frequency of acute kidney injury (P = .08).

Although the appropriate patient population for the system would be small, “once you get to refractory ascites, management of these individuals is really, really challenging, especially people that had contraindications to a TIPS procedure. Anything that you can do to improve their quality of life and help with management is definitely desired,” said Nancy Reau, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Reau is chief of the section of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The study found little difference in infection risk between the PeCa and standard of care group, but there was a trend toward more hyponatremia in the PeCa group. That could be caused by reduced contact with the health system, according to Dr. Reau, since physicians may be keeping an eye on electrolytes, diuretics, and other factors during paracentesis visits. “But as long as you’re setting up home nursing or some other way to make sure that you’re managing them appropriately, that should be something that is overcome with awareness,” said Dr. Reau.

During the question-and-answer following the presentation, Dr. Tergast was asked about the heightened frequency of hospitalizations in the PeCa group. He posited that the observation may be caused by the retrospective nature of the study. His center is a tertiary care center, which accepts referrals from all over Germany. When a problem occurs with a PeCa, patients often get referred back to the tertiary center, leading to a higher number of hospitalizations observed in that group. “So this might be a bias in the analysis,” he said.

“I think if we can optimize the treatment after discharge, we can also minimize the rehospitalization in these patients. Rehospitalization rate because of ascites was quite low,” said Dr. Tergast.

Dr. Tergast and Dr. Reau have no relevant financial disclosures.