User login
Breast cancer outcomes are worse for Black men
A new study finds that racial disparities in male breast cancer are persisting in the United States.
From 2000 to 2019, Black men were diagnosed at later ages than White males (median ages, 69 and 63 years, respectively) and were more likely to die from the disease (22.4% vs. 16.8%, respectively). Male breast cancer (MBC) was more likely to kill Black men in rural vs. urban areas (hazard ratio = 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.1; P less than .05). Among White males, in contrast, there was no difference on that front, according to the research, which was presented in a poster (Abstract No. 87P) at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
It’s not clear why the disparities exist, said lead author Lekha Yadukumar, MBBS, an internal medicine resident at the Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education in Scranton, Penn., in an interview.
“Several potential factors may contribute to the higher rate of breast cancer diagnosis in older [Black] men, including the pathology of the disease, limited awareness about breast cancer, and potential barriers to accessibility,” she said. “The increased mortality among [Black men] may be linked to variations in tumor pathology and molecular biology. Social factors may also potentially impact survival rates, including [having] limited access to health care in rural areas and inadequate social support.”
Male breast cancer is rare, accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancer cases in the United States, according to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. An estimated 2,700 men are diagnosed each year, and about 530 will die. Previous research has suggested Black men have worse outcomes than White men, but the data covered earlier years than the new study.
Methods and results
Dr. Yadukumar and colleagues retrospectively analyzed statistics from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for patients diagnosed with primary male breast cancer from 2000 to 2019 (n = 8,373; Black men, 1,111 [13.26%]; White men, 6,817 [81.41%]).
Median income didn’t affect mortality, whereas men in both racial groups were less likely to die if they were married vs. single/divorced (hazard ratio = 0.6; P less than .05).
Other studies have shown that “[Black American] men diagnosed with breast cancer experience longer time intervals before receiving treatment, encounter more severe disease manifestations, and exhibit lower rates of survivorship,” Dr. Yadukumar said. “Despite these findings, there remains a scarcity of genetic studies aimed at comprehending the underlying causes of these disparities. Moreover, there is a dearth of research investigating other factors that may influence survival outcomes among men with breast cancer.”
Findings reflect the disparities in female breast cancer
In an interview, Duke University, Durham, N.C., oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said the study is impressive since the number of patients is large for a rare cancer and the population is diverse. Plus, the findings reflect the disparities in female breast cancer, he noted.
“We know that Black women’s mortality is worse vs. White women in breast cancer, and we believe that most of that has nothing to do with cancer screening,” said Dr. Kamal, who was not involved in the new study. “When the clock starts from diagnosis onwards, you start to see less introduction to clinical trials and standard care medications and more time to treatment, surgery, and radiation,” he said.
“You see similar disparities as related to mortality in Black vs. White men,” he noted.
The new findings about higher death rates for Black men, especially in rural areas, suggest that “distance matters, and race matters,” he said. In rural areas, it can be hard to access pathologists, radiologists, and surgeons with more experience with breast cancer, he said.
But, he noted, the study finds that income doesn’t appear to be a factor.
In the big picture, he said, the results suggest that when it comes to barriers to better outcomes, “things that are systemic don’t make exceptions because you are a man vs. a woman.”
No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Kamal have no relevant financial disclosures.
A new study finds that racial disparities in male breast cancer are persisting in the United States.
From 2000 to 2019, Black men were diagnosed at later ages than White males (median ages, 69 and 63 years, respectively) and were more likely to die from the disease (22.4% vs. 16.8%, respectively). Male breast cancer (MBC) was more likely to kill Black men in rural vs. urban areas (hazard ratio = 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.1; P less than .05). Among White males, in contrast, there was no difference on that front, according to the research, which was presented in a poster (Abstract No. 87P) at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
It’s not clear why the disparities exist, said lead author Lekha Yadukumar, MBBS, an internal medicine resident at the Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education in Scranton, Penn., in an interview.
“Several potential factors may contribute to the higher rate of breast cancer diagnosis in older [Black] men, including the pathology of the disease, limited awareness about breast cancer, and potential barriers to accessibility,” she said. “The increased mortality among [Black men] may be linked to variations in tumor pathology and molecular biology. Social factors may also potentially impact survival rates, including [having] limited access to health care in rural areas and inadequate social support.”
Male breast cancer is rare, accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancer cases in the United States, according to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. An estimated 2,700 men are diagnosed each year, and about 530 will die. Previous research has suggested Black men have worse outcomes than White men, but the data covered earlier years than the new study.
Methods and results
Dr. Yadukumar and colleagues retrospectively analyzed statistics from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for patients diagnosed with primary male breast cancer from 2000 to 2019 (n = 8,373; Black men, 1,111 [13.26%]; White men, 6,817 [81.41%]).
Median income didn’t affect mortality, whereas men in both racial groups were less likely to die if they were married vs. single/divorced (hazard ratio = 0.6; P less than .05).
Other studies have shown that “[Black American] men diagnosed with breast cancer experience longer time intervals before receiving treatment, encounter more severe disease manifestations, and exhibit lower rates of survivorship,” Dr. Yadukumar said. “Despite these findings, there remains a scarcity of genetic studies aimed at comprehending the underlying causes of these disparities. Moreover, there is a dearth of research investigating other factors that may influence survival outcomes among men with breast cancer.”
Findings reflect the disparities in female breast cancer
In an interview, Duke University, Durham, N.C., oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said the study is impressive since the number of patients is large for a rare cancer and the population is diverse. Plus, the findings reflect the disparities in female breast cancer, he noted.
“We know that Black women’s mortality is worse vs. White women in breast cancer, and we believe that most of that has nothing to do with cancer screening,” said Dr. Kamal, who was not involved in the new study. “When the clock starts from diagnosis onwards, you start to see less introduction to clinical trials and standard care medications and more time to treatment, surgery, and radiation,” he said.
“You see similar disparities as related to mortality in Black vs. White men,” he noted.
The new findings about higher death rates for Black men, especially in rural areas, suggest that “distance matters, and race matters,” he said. In rural areas, it can be hard to access pathologists, radiologists, and surgeons with more experience with breast cancer, he said.
But, he noted, the study finds that income doesn’t appear to be a factor.
In the big picture, he said, the results suggest that when it comes to barriers to better outcomes, “things that are systemic don’t make exceptions because you are a man vs. a woman.”
No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Kamal have no relevant financial disclosures.
A new study finds that racial disparities in male breast cancer are persisting in the United States.
From 2000 to 2019, Black men were diagnosed at later ages than White males (median ages, 69 and 63 years, respectively) and were more likely to die from the disease (22.4% vs. 16.8%, respectively). Male breast cancer (MBC) was more likely to kill Black men in rural vs. urban areas (hazard ratio = 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.1; P less than .05). Among White males, in contrast, there was no difference on that front, according to the research, which was presented in a poster (Abstract No. 87P) at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
It’s not clear why the disparities exist, said lead author Lekha Yadukumar, MBBS, an internal medicine resident at the Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education in Scranton, Penn., in an interview.
“Several potential factors may contribute to the higher rate of breast cancer diagnosis in older [Black] men, including the pathology of the disease, limited awareness about breast cancer, and potential barriers to accessibility,” she said. “The increased mortality among [Black men] may be linked to variations in tumor pathology and molecular biology. Social factors may also potentially impact survival rates, including [having] limited access to health care in rural areas and inadequate social support.”
Male breast cancer is rare, accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancer cases in the United States, according to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. An estimated 2,700 men are diagnosed each year, and about 530 will die. Previous research has suggested Black men have worse outcomes than White men, but the data covered earlier years than the new study.
Methods and results
Dr. Yadukumar and colleagues retrospectively analyzed statistics from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for patients diagnosed with primary male breast cancer from 2000 to 2019 (n = 8,373; Black men, 1,111 [13.26%]; White men, 6,817 [81.41%]).
Median income didn’t affect mortality, whereas men in both racial groups were less likely to die if they were married vs. single/divorced (hazard ratio = 0.6; P less than .05).
Other studies have shown that “[Black American] men diagnosed with breast cancer experience longer time intervals before receiving treatment, encounter more severe disease manifestations, and exhibit lower rates of survivorship,” Dr. Yadukumar said. “Despite these findings, there remains a scarcity of genetic studies aimed at comprehending the underlying causes of these disparities. Moreover, there is a dearth of research investigating other factors that may influence survival outcomes among men with breast cancer.”
Findings reflect the disparities in female breast cancer
In an interview, Duke University, Durham, N.C., oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said the study is impressive since the number of patients is large for a rare cancer and the population is diverse. Plus, the findings reflect the disparities in female breast cancer, he noted.
“We know that Black women’s mortality is worse vs. White women in breast cancer, and we believe that most of that has nothing to do with cancer screening,” said Dr. Kamal, who was not involved in the new study. “When the clock starts from diagnosis onwards, you start to see less introduction to clinical trials and standard care medications and more time to treatment, surgery, and radiation,” he said.
“You see similar disparities as related to mortality in Black vs. White men,” he noted.
The new findings about higher death rates for Black men, especially in rural areas, suggest that “distance matters, and race matters,” he said. In rural areas, it can be hard to access pathologists, radiologists, and surgeons with more experience with breast cancer, he said.
But, he noted, the study finds that income doesn’t appear to be a factor.
In the big picture, he said, the results suggest that when it comes to barriers to better outcomes, “things that are systemic don’t make exceptions because you are a man vs. a woman.”
No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Kamal have no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2023
Black patients most likely to be restrained in EDs, Latino patients least likely
SAN FRANCISCO – .
In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.
The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”
According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.
Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.
For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.
Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).
The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.
Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.
Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.
What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”
Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”
No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.
SAN FRANCISCO – .
In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.
The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”
According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.
Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.
For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.
Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).
The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.
Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.
Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.
What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”
Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”
No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.
SAN FRANCISCO – .
In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.
The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”
According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.
Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.
For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.
Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).
The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.
Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.
Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.
What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”
Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”
No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.
AT APA 2023
Venetoclax boosts ibrutinib in high-risk CLL
Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.
By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”
According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”
The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.
Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.
For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.
An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.
At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.
It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”
The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”
The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.
In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”
She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”
Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”
AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.
By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”
According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”
The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.
Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.
For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.
An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.
At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.
It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”
The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”
The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.
In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”
She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”
Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”
AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.
By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”
According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”
The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.
Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.
For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.
An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.
At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.
It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”
The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”
The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.
In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”
She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”
Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”
AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
FROM LEUKEMIA
PARP inhibitors and breast cancer: Questions remain about wider use
oncologists explained at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.
For now, the drugs are only approved in high-risk germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut) early breast cancer, oncologist Kevin Punie, MD, of Saint Augustine Hospital in Wilrijk, Belgium, said during a session at the meeting. Combining the drugs with chemotherapy “has not yet demonstrated significant benefits, and this is irrespective whether platinum was part of the chemotherapy backbone.”
PARP is a kind of enzyme that repairs damaged DNA in cells, especially cancerous ones. PARP inhibitors block the enzyme, potentially leading more cancer cells to die, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute states.
In a separate presentation during the same session, oncologist Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, noted that a study he led – a phase 3, double-blinded, randomized 2021 trial – found that patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer who took the PARP inhibitor olarapib (Lynparza) versus placebo had improved outcomes on several measures, including 3-year invasive disease-free survival (85.9% vs. 77.1%, P < .001). However, the study noted that “olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life.”
Dr. Tutt, of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Kings College London, said 57% of patients who took olarapib suffered nausea versus 24% of those who took placebo, and fatigue and anemia were also more common in the olarapib group. Anemia can be severe and lead to transfusions in some cases.
As Dr. Punie explained, there are many reasons to consider combining PARP inhibitors with other treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. The combinations may have synergetic effects, and they could have potential in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.
The combination of the PARP inhibitor olaparib and endocrine therapy is now approved by the European Medicines Agency for the adjuvant treatment of certain patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who have HER2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer, Dr. Punie noted.
The 2021 study led by Dr. Tutt reported that treatment or safety differences were found in those who received both olaparib and endocrine therapy versus those who only received olarapib.
So far, Dr. Punie said, “we not yet have enough clinical evidence to say that there’s really synergy between PNP inhibitors and other anticancer therapies.” According to the National Institutes of Health, medical synergy “describes the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”
In regard to chemotherapy, it makes sense that PARP inhibitors would be helpful in combination, Dr. Punie said. DNA damage to cancer cells accumulates during chemotherapy, he said, and they’re more depending on PARP for repair.
Study results so far have been mixed. A 2022 study, for example, found that adding the experimental PARP inhibitor veliparib to the chemotherapy regimen carboplatin-paclitaxel didn’t improve outcomes, he said. A similar study examining the addition of olaparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel is ongoing.
As for combining radiotherapy and PARP inhibitors, Dr. Punie said that preclinical findings are promising, and research is underway. There’s also ongoing research into combining PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy.
Off-label use of olaparib with immunotherapy or sequential treatment may be appropriate in the setting of adjuvant gBRCAmut triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease, he said.
During his presentation, Dr. Tutt called for researchers to investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in the de-escalation of treatment in lower-risk gBRCAmut disease.
“Clearly, some patients require chemotherapy, and we know patients respond very well to neoadjuvant chemotherapy if they have a BRCA mutation, but we don’t yet know who we can de-escalate in,” he said.
He also highlighted the need to reduce anemia in patients on PARP inhibitors, “particularly if we’re moving into lower-risk populations or possibly considering prevention trials.
“The study of PARP inhibitor resistance ... is now urgent, so that we can address it,” he said.
Dr. Punie disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Focus Patient, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Need, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and PharmaMar. Dr. Tutt disclosed financial relationships with Artios, Gilead, MD Anderson, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Vertex, AstraZeneca, EM Partners, Medscape Education, CRUK, Inbiomotion, Myriad Genetics, and Breast Cancer Now.
oncologists explained at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.
For now, the drugs are only approved in high-risk germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut) early breast cancer, oncologist Kevin Punie, MD, of Saint Augustine Hospital in Wilrijk, Belgium, said during a session at the meeting. Combining the drugs with chemotherapy “has not yet demonstrated significant benefits, and this is irrespective whether platinum was part of the chemotherapy backbone.”
PARP is a kind of enzyme that repairs damaged DNA in cells, especially cancerous ones. PARP inhibitors block the enzyme, potentially leading more cancer cells to die, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute states.
In a separate presentation during the same session, oncologist Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, noted that a study he led – a phase 3, double-blinded, randomized 2021 trial – found that patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer who took the PARP inhibitor olarapib (Lynparza) versus placebo had improved outcomes on several measures, including 3-year invasive disease-free survival (85.9% vs. 77.1%, P < .001). However, the study noted that “olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life.”
Dr. Tutt, of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Kings College London, said 57% of patients who took olarapib suffered nausea versus 24% of those who took placebo, and fatigue and anemia were also more common in the olarapib group. Anemia can be severe and lead to transfusions in some cases.
As Dr. Punie explained, there are many reasons to consider combining PARP inhibitors with other treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. The combinations may have synergetic effects, and they could have potential in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.
The combination of the PARP inhibitor olaparib and endocrine therapy is now approved by the European Medicines Agency for the adjuvant treatment of certain patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who have HER2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer, Dr. Punie noted.
The 2021 study led by Dr. Tutt reported that treatment or safety differences were found in those who received both olaparib and endocrine therapy versus those who only received olarapib.
So far, Dr. Punie said, “we not yet have enough clinical evidence to say that there’s really synergy between PNP inhibitors and other anticancer therapies.” According to the National Institutes of Health, medical synergy “describes the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”
In regard to chemotherapy, it makes sense that PARP inhibitors would be helpful in combination, Dr. Punie said. DNA damage to cancer cells accumulates during chemotherapy, he said, and they’re more depending on PARP for repair.
Study results so far have been mixed. A 2022 study, for example, found that adding the experimental PARP inhibitor veliparib to the chemotherapy regimen carboplatin-paclitaxel didn’t improve outcomes, he said. A similar study examining the addition of olaparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel is ongoing.
As for combining radiotherapy and PARP inhibitors, Dr. Punie said that preclinical findings are promising, and research is underway. There’s also ongoing research into combining PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy.
Off-label use of olaparib with immunotherapy or sequential treatment may be appropriate in the setting of adjuvant gBRCAmut triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease, he said.
During his presentation, Dr. Tutt called for researchers to investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in the de-escalation of treatment in lower-risk gBRCAmut disease.
“Clearly, some patients require chemotherapy, and we know patients respond very well to neoadjuvant chemotherapy if they have a BRCA mutation, but we don’t yet know who we can de-escalate in,” he said.
He also highlighted the need to reduce anemia in patients on PARP inhibitors, “particularly if we’re moving into lower-risk populations or possibly considering prevention trials.
“The study of PARP inhibitor resistance ... is now urgent, so that we can address it,” he said.
Dr. Punie disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Focus Patient, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Need, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and PharmaMar. Dr. Tutt disclosed financial relationships with Artios, Gilead, MD Anderson, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Vertex, AstraZeneca, EM Partners, Medscape Education, CRUK, Inbiomotion, Myriad Genetics, and Breast Cancer Now.
oncologists explained at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.
For now, the drugs are only approved in high-risk germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut) early breast cancer, oncologist Kevin Punie, MD, of Saint Augustine Hospital in Wilrijk, Belgium, said during a session at the meeting. Combining the drugs with chemotherapy “has not yet demonstrated significant benefits, and this is irrespective whether platinum was part of the chemotherapy backbone.”
PARP is a kind of enzyme that repairs damaged DNA in cells, especially cancerous ones. PARP inhibitors block the enzyme, potentially leading more cancer cells to die, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute states.
In a separate presentation during the same session, oncologist Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, noted that a study he led – a phase 3, double-blinded, randomized 2021 trial – found that patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer who took the PARP inhibitor olarapib (Lynparza) versus placebo had improved outcomes on several measures, including 3-year invasive disease-free survival (85.9% vs. 77.1%, P < .001). However, the study noted that “olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life.”
Dr. Tutt, of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Kings College London, said 57% of patients who took olarapib suffered nausea versus 24% of those who took placebo, and fatigue and anemia were also more common in the olarapib group. Anemia can be severe and lead to transfusions in some cases.
As Dr. Punie explained, there are many reasons to consider combining PARP inhibitors with other treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. The combinations may have synergetic effects, and they could have potential in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.
The combination of the PARP inhibitor olaparib and endocrine therapy is now approved by the European Medicines Agency for the adjuvant treatment of certain patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who have HER2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer, Dr. Punie noted.
The 2021 study led by Dr. Tutt reported that treatment or safety differences were found in those who received both olaparib and endocrine therapy versus those who only received olarapib.
So far, Dr. Punie said, “we not yet have enough clinical evidence to say that there’s really synergy between PNP inhibitors and other anticancer therapies.” According to the National Institutes of Health, medical synergy “describes the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”
In regard to chemotherapy, it makes sense that PARP inhibitors would be helpful in combination, Dr. Punie said. DNA damage to cancer cells accumulates during chemotherapy, he said, and they’re more depending on PARP for repair.
Study results so far have been mixed. A 2022 study, for example, found that adding the experimental PARP inhibitor veliparib to the chemotherapy regimen carboplatin-paclitaxel didn’t improve outcomes, he said. A similar study examining the addition of olaparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel is ongoing.
As for combining radiotherapy and PARP inhibitors, Dr. Punie said that preclinical findings are promising, and research is underway. There’s also ongoing research into combining PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy.
Off-label use of olaparib with immunotherapy or sequential treatment may be appropriate in the setting of adjuvant gBRCAmut triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease, he said.
During his presentation, Dr. Tutt called for researchers to investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in the de-escalation of treatment in lower-risk gBRCAmut disease.
“Clearly, some patients require chemotherapy, and we know patients respond very well to neoadjuvant chemotherapy if they have a BRCA mutation, but we don’t yet know who we can de-escalate in,” he said.
He also highlighted the need to reduce anemia in patients on PARP inhibitors, “particularly if we’re moving into lower-risk populations or possibly considering prevention trials.
“The study of PARP inhibitor resistance ... is now urgent, so that we can address it,” he said.
Dr. Punie disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Focus Patient, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Need, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and PharmaMar. Dr. Tutt disclosed financial relationships with Artios, Gilead, MD Anderson, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Vertex, AstraZeneca, EM Partners, Medscape Education, CRUK, Inbiomotion, Myriad Genetics, and Breast Cancer Now.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2023
Genomic assay changes minds on HER2+ BC treatment
The prospective pilot study is small, and the researchers didn’t report on how the patients fared, according to a poster presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Plus, the test itself hasn’t been analyzed prospectively. But the study’s lead author, Olga Martínez-Sáez, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the 56% number is significant.
“We consider this percentage to be clinically very relevant,” said Dr. Martínez-Sáez, an oncologist at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona. “HER2DX can change practice.”
Also in an interview, Kent Hoskins, MD, associate chief of hematology/oncology at University of Illinois at Chicago, described HER2DX as a next-generation genomic test that builds on assays developed 2 decades ago to help identify patients who would benefit – or not – from adjuvant chemotherapy.
Dr. Hoskins, who isn’t connected to the new study but has studied genomic tests for breast cancer, said the HER2DX test seeks to provide guidance to oncologists about which of several treatments are most effective in treating patients with HER2+ breast cancer.
“The overall trend in the HER2+ space is escalating therapy, and the cure rates have improved quite substantially,” he said. “But do they all need that much therapy? That’s the clinical question that this assay is addressing.”
The assay examines clinical features and the expression of 4 gene signatures, Dr. Martínez-Sáez said. It provides a risk score estimating the likelihood of recurrence plus a score that estimates the likelihood of achieving pathological complete response (pCR) with trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy and an ERBB2 mRNA score.
In a retrospective 2022 study published in eBioMedicine, researchers reported that the assay “predicts response following neoadjuvant letrozole in combination with dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive/hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.”
In the 2022 study, researchers wrote that assay results and other scores “might help better tailor systemic therapy in this context and identify candidates for avoiding chemotherapy, a therapy associated with short- and long-term toxicities and impact in quality of life.”
For the new study, a decision-impact analysis, researchers tracked 89 patients with HER2+ breast cancer (median age = 53 years, range 30-79, and 52% postmenopausal), the poster says. Most had T1-2 tumors (87%), negative nodes (64%), grade 2 (56%) or 3 (41%) tumors, and ductal histology (87%). And most were hormone receptor positive (65%). Seventy-eight percent of patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and 22% underwent upfront surgery.
In 56% of cases, oncologists changed their treatment decisions after getting the results of the HER2DX assays. In 59% of these cases, oncologists de-escalated therapy; in 41%, they escalated therapy, opting for more intense chemotherapy 65% of the time, according to the poster.
Clinician confidence in their decisions improved in 67% of cases, the researchers reported in their poster. Among 56 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy who could be evaluated, “HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR (81% in pCR-medium/high and 32% in pCR-low; odds ratio=9.3, P = 0.001) independently of the rest of variables.”
Dr. Hoskins said the new report suggests that the assay can change treatment decisions, although he cautioned that “this study does not in itself establish its place in standard of care.” Large, prospective, randomized research is still needed, he said.
Dr. Martínez-Sáez said, in an interview, that the HER2DX assay should cost about as much as genomic assays for other breast cancer subtypes. These kinds of tests have cost several thousand dollars each in recent years.
What’s next? The decision impact study is ongoing. As for research into the assay itself, “prospective clinical trials are planned to demonstrate its clinical utility to de-escalate and guide therapy,” Dr. Martínez-Sáez said.
No funding is reported. Reveal Genomics is the developer of the HER2DX assay. Dr. Martinez- Saez reports financial relationships with Novartis, Eisai, Roche, and Reveal Genomics. Other study authors report multiple disclosures. Dr. Hoskins discloses non-financial research support from Agendia, which makes the MammaPrint early-breast-cancer assay.
The prospective pilot study is small, and the researchers didn’t report on how the patients fared, according to a poster presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Plus, the test itself hasn’t been analyzed prospectively. But the study’s lead author, Olga Martínez-Sáez, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the 56% number is significant.
“We consider this percentage to be clinically very relevant,” said Dr. Martínez-Sáez, an oncologist at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona. “HER2DX can change practice.”
Also in an interview, Kent Hoskins, MD, associate chief of hematology/oncology at University of Illinois at Chicago, described HER2DX as a next-generation genomic test that builds on assays developed 2 decades ago to help identify patients who would benefit – or not – from adjuvant chemotherapy.
Dr. Hoskins, who isn’t connected to the new study but has studied genomic tests for breast cancer, said the HER2DX test seeks to provide guidance to oncologists about which of several treatments are most effective in treating patients with HER2+ breast cancer.
“The overall trend in the HER2+ space is escalating therapy, and the cure rates have improved quite substantially,” he said. “But do they all need that much therapy? That’s the clinical question that this assay is addressing.”
The assay examines clinical features and the expression of 4 gene signatures, Dr. Martínez-Sáez said. It provides a risk score estimating the likelihood of recurrence plus a score that estimates the likelihood of achieving pathological complete response (pCR) with trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy and an ERBB2 mRNA score.
In a retrospective 2022 study published in eBioMedicine, researchers reported that the assay “predicts response following neoadjuvant letrozole in combination with dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive/hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.”
In the 2022 study, researchers wrote that assay results and other scores “might help better tailor systemic therapy in this context and identify candidates for avoiding chemotherapy, a therapy associated with short- and long-term toxicities and impact in quality of life.”
For the new study, a decision-impact analysis, researchers tracked 89 patients with HER2+ breast cancer (median age = 53 years, range 30-79, and 52% postmenopausal), the poster says. Most had T1-2 tumors (87%), negative nodes (64%), grade 2 (56%) or 3 (41%) tumors, and ductal histology (87%). And most were hormone receptor positive (65%). Seventy-eight percent of patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and 22% underwent upfront surgery.
In 56% of cases, oncologists changed their treatment decisions after getting the results of the HER2DX assays. In 59% of these cases, oncologists de-escalated therapy; in 41%, they escalated therapy, opting for more intense chemotherapy 65% of the time, according to the poster.
Clinician confidence in their decisions improved in 67% of cases, the researchers reported in their poster. Among 56 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy who could be evaluated, “HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR (81% in pCR-medium/high and 32% in pCR-low; odds ratio=9.3, P = 0.001) independently of the rest of variables.”
Dr. Hoskins said the new report suggests that the assay can change treatment decisions, although he cautioned that “this study does not in itself establish its place in standard of care.” Large, prospective, randomized research is still needed, he said.
Dr. Martínez-Sáez said, in an interview, that the HER2DX assay should cost about as much as genomic assays for other breast cancer subtypes. These kinds of tests have cost several thousand dollars each in recent years.
What’s next? The decision impact study is ongoing. As for research into the assay itself, “prospective clinical trials are planned to demonstrate its clinical utility to de-escalate and guide therapy,” Dr. Martínez-Sáez said.
No funding is reported. Reveal Genomics is the developer of the HER2DX assay. Dr. Martinez- Saez reports financial relationships with Novartis, Eisai, Roche, and Reveal Genomics. Other study authors report multiple disclosures. Dr. Hoskins discloses non-financial research support from Agendia, which makes the MammaPrint early-breast-cancer assay.
The prospective pilot study is small, and the researchers didn’t report on how the patients fared, according to a poster presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Plus, the test itself hasn’t been analyzed prospectively. But the study’s lead author, Olga Martínez-Sáez, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the 56% number is significant.
“We consider this percentage to be clinically very relevant,” said Dr. Martínez-Sáez, an oncologist at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona. “HER2DX can change practice.”
Also in an interview, Kent Hoskins, MD, associate chief of hematology/oncology at University of Illinois at Chicago, described HER2DX as a next-generation genomic test that builds on assays developed 2 decades ago to help identify patients who would benefit – or not – from adjuvant chemotherapy.
Dr. Hoskins, who isn’t connected to the new study but has studied genomic tests for breast cancer, said the HER2DX test seeks to provide guidance to oncologists about which of several treatments are most effective in treating patients with HER2+ breast cancer.
“The overall trend in the HER2+ space is escalating therapy, and the cure rates have improved quite substantially,” he said. “But do they all need that much therapy? That’s the clinical question that this assay is addressing.”
The assay examines clinical features and the expression of 4 gene signatures, Dr. Martínez-Sáez said. It provides a risk score estimating the likelihood of recurrence plus a score that estimates the likelihood of achieving pathological complete response (pCR) with trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy and an ERBB2 mRNA score.
In a retrospective 2022 study published in eBioMedicine, researchers reported that the assay “predicts response following neoadjuvant letrozole in combination with dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive/hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.”
In the 2022 study, researchers wrote that assay results and other scores “might help better tailor systemic therapy in this context and identify candidates for avoiding chemotherapy, a therapy associated with short- and long-term toxicities and impact in quality of life.”
For the new study, a decision-impact analysis, researchers tracked 89 patients with HER2+ breast cancer (median age = 53 years, range 30-79, and 52% postmenopausal), the poster says. Most had T1-2 tumors (87%), negative nodes (64%), grade 2 (56%) or 3 (41%) tumors, and ductal histology (87%). And most were hormone receptor positive (65%). Seventy-eight percent of patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and 22% underwent upfront surgery.
In 56% of cases, oncologists changed their treatment decisions after getting the results of the HER2DX assays. In 59% of these cases, oncologists de-escalated therapy; in 41%, they escalated therapy, opting for more intense chemotherapy 65% of the time, according to the poster.
Clinician confidence in their decisions improved in 67% of cases, the researchers reported in their poster. Among 56 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy who could be evaluated, “HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR (81% in pCR-medium/high and 32% in pCR-low; odds ratio=9.3, P = 0.001) independently of the rest of variables.”
Dr. Hoskins said the new report suggests that the assay can change treatment decisions, although he cautioned that “this study does not in itself establish its place in standard of care.” Large, prospective, randomized research is still needed, he said.
Dr. Martínez-Sáez said, in an interview, that the HER2DX assay should cost about as much as genomic assays for other breast cancer subtypes. These kinds of tests have cost several thousand dollars each in recent years.
What’s next? The decision impact study is ongoing. As for research into the assay itself, “prospective clinical trials are planned to demonstrate its clinical utility to de-escalate and guide therapy,” Dr. Martínez-Sáez said.
No funding is reported. Reveal Genomics is the developer of the HER2DX assay. Dr. Martinez- Saez reports financial relationships with Novartis, Eisai, Roche, and Reveal Genomics. Other study authors report multiple disclosures. Dr. Hoskins discloses non-financial research support from Agendia, which makes the MammaPrint early-breast-cancer assay.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2023
T-DXd for HER2-low BC: Analysis confirms adverse effects
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) also remains a concern, and it’s not clear if retreatment after resolution is warranted.
In general, however, “T-DXd demonstrates a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. Results from this safety analysis continued to support its use as a new standard of care in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer,” said report lead author Hope Rugo, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
T-DXd, an antibody-drug conjugate, received FDA approval in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. The drug has been touted as “practice changing” and a “new standard of care.”
However, physicians have noted that the benefits of the drug come at the cost of significant adverse effects, including some that can cause hospitalization. There’s special concern about high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and an FDA boxed warning cautions clinicians about this possible side effect.
For the new analysis, researchers presented additional safety data from the industry-funded DESTINY-Breast04 trial, whose results was published in July 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine. That study randomized 373 patients to T-DXd and 184 to physician’s choice of treatment. It found that, “among all patients, the median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; P < .001), and overall survival was 23.4 months and 16.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; P = .001).”
Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were lower for T-DXd versus physician’s choice of treatment (1.30 vs. 2.66). However, nausea and vomiting events were more than twice as common in patients who took T-DXd versus the physician’s choice (79.5% vs. 35.5%).
A total of 50.9% of patients in the T-DXd arm received antiemetic prophylaxis versus 37.2% in the physician’s choice arm. A single patient discontinued T-DXd treatment because of vomiting, and a single patient discontinued treatment because of nausea. No patients in the physician choice group discontinued treatment because of nausea or vomiting.
Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were less frequent in the T-DXd arm versus physician’s choice (12.9% vs. 18.0% and 0.3% vs. 2.9%, respectively.)
ILD occurred in 45 patients (12.1%) of those in the T-DXd arm versus 1 (0.6%) in the physician choice arm. Ten patients of the patients in the T-DXd arm had not recovered by the data cutoff point.
Six patients with ILD were retreated following resolution; one discontinued because of an adverse event, two discontinued because of progressive disease, and three remained on the drug. “Given that there was only a small number of patients who were retreated with T-DXd, it’s difficult to make clinically meaningful conclusions on the effect of retreatment following grade IDL events that have resolved,” Dr. Rugo said.
In the big picture, “ILD pneumonitis remains an important identified risk and an adverse event of interest associated with T-DXd,” Dr. Rugo said. “It’s important that we adhere to management guidelines and updated toxicity management guidelines.”
In a discussion, Dr. Rugo said she prescribes three antiemetic drugs to help patients tolerate T-DXd therapy: “It makes a big difference. Anecdotally, it really has improved management of nausea. Start more and back down [as symptoms fade].”
Gustavo Werutsky, MD, PhD, of Moinhos de Vento Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil, the discussant for the presentation, also emphasized the importance of prevention and said he prescribes two or three prophylactic drugs. “In the beginning, we didn’t know these events were so important. A big part of the message is that patients from the beginning need to have a good prophylaxis for the nausea and vomiting.”
The researchers also presented a related report at the conference, an analysis of patient-reported outcomes from DESTINY-Breast02, a randomized phase 3 study of T-DXd (n = 406) versus physician’s choice of treatment (n = 202) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who were resistant/refractory to trastuzumab emtansine.
The analysis, led by Tanja Fehm, MD, of University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany), found that the median time to definitive deterioration was longer with T-DXd versus the other arm per the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life score (14.1 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.71).
The studies were funded by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca, which make T-DXd. Dr. Hugo discloses relationships with Puma, NAPO, Blueprint, Scorpion Therapeutics, Merck, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, OBI, Pfizer, Pionyr, Sermonix, Taiho Oncology, and Veru. Multiple other authors of both studies have various disclosures.
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) also remains a concern, and it’s not clear if retreatment after resolution is warranted.
In general, however, “T-DXd demonstrates a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. Results from this safety analysis continued to support its use as a new standard of care in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer,” said report lead author Hope Rugo, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
T-DXd, an antibody-drug conjugate, received FDA approval in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. The drug has been touted as “practice changing” and a “new standard of care.”
However, physicians have noted that the benefits of the drug come at the cost of significant adverse effects, including some that can cause hospitalization. There’s special concern about high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and an FDA boxed warning cautions clinicians about this possible side effect.
For the new analysis, researchers presented additional safety data from the industry-funded DESTINY-Breast04 trial, whose results was published in July 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine. That study randomized 373 patients to T-DXd and 184 to physician’s choice of treatment. It found that, “among all patients, the median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; P < .001), and overall survival was 23.4 months and 16.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; P = .001).”
Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were lower for T-DXd versus physician’s choice of treatment (1.30 vs. 2.66). However, nausea and vomiting events were more than twice as common in patients who took T-DXd versus the physician’s choice (79.5% vs. 35.5%).
A total of 50.9% of patients in the T-DXd arm received antiemetic prophylaxis versus 37.2% in the physician’s choice arm. A single patient discontinued T-DXd treatment because of vomiting, and a single patient discontinued treatment because of nausea. No patients in the physician choice group discontinued treatment because of nausea or vomiting.
Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were less frequent in the T-DXd arm versus physician’s choice (12.9% vs. 18.0% and 0.3% vs. 2.9%, respectively.)
ILD occurred in 45 patients (12.1%) of those in the T-DXd arm versus 1 (0.6%) in the physician choice arm. Ten patients of the patients in the T-DXd arm had not recovered by the data cutoff point.
Six patients with ILD were retreated following resolution; one discontinued because of an adverse event, two discontinued because of progressive disease, and three remained on the drug. “Given that there was only a small number of patients who were retreated with T-DXd, it’s difficult to make clinically meaningful conclusions on the effect of retreatment following grade IDL events that have resolved,” Dr. Rugo said.
In the big picture, “ILD pneumonitis remains an important identified risk and an adverse event of interest associated with T-DXd,” Dr. Rugo said. “It’s important that we adhere to management guidelines and updated toxicity management guidelines.”
In a discussion, Dr. Rugo said she prescribes three antiemetic drugs to help patients tolerate T-DXd therapy: “It makes a big difference. Anecdotally, it really has improved management of nausea. Start more and back down [as symptoms fade].”
Gustavo Werutsky, MD, PhD, of Moinhos de Vento Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil, the discussant for the presentation, also emphasized the importance of prevention and said he prescribes two or three prophylactic drugs. “In the beginning, we didn’t know these events were so important. A big part of the message is that patients from the beginning need to have a good prophylaxis for the nausea and vomiting.”
The researchers also presented a related report at the conference, an analysis of patient-reported outcomes from DESTINY-Breast02, a randomized phase 3 study of T-DXd (n = 406) versus physician’s choice of treatment (n = 202) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who were resistant/refractory to trastuzumab emtansine.
The analysis, led by Tanja Fehm, MD, of University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany), found that the median time to definitive deterioration was longer with T-DXd versus the other arm per the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life score (14.1 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.71).
The studies were funded by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca, which make T-DXd. Dr. Hugo discloses relationships with Puma, NAPO, Blueprint, Scorpion Therapeutics, Merck, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, OBI, Pfizer, Pionyr, Sermonix, Taiho Oncology, and Veru. Multiple other authors of both studies have various disclosures.
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) also remains a concern, and it’s not clear if retreatment after resolution is warranted.
In general, however, “T-DXd demonstrates a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. Results from this safety analysis continued to support its use as a new standard of care in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer,” said report lead author Hope Rugo, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
T-DXd, an antibody-drug conjugate, received FDA approval in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. The drug has been touted as “practice changing” and a “new standard of care.”
However, physicians have noted that the benefits of the drug come at the cost of significant adverse effects, including some that can cause hospitalization. There’s special concern about high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and an FDA boxed warning cautions clinicians about this possible side effect.
For the new analysis, researchers presented additional safety data from the industry-funded DESTINY-Breast04 trial, whose results was published in July 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine. That study randomized 373 patients to T-DXd and 184 to physician’s choice of treatment. It found that, “among all patients, the median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; P < .001), and overall survival was 23.4 months and 16.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; P = .001).”
Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were lower for T-DXd versus physician’s choice of treatment (1.30 vs. 2.66). However, nausea and vomiting events were more than twice as common in patients who took T-DXd versus the physician’s choice (79.5% vs. 35.5%).
A total of 50.9% of patients in the T-DXd arm received antiemetic prophylaxis versus 37.2% in the physician’s choice arm. A single patient discontinued T-DXd treatment because of vomiting, and a single patient discontinued treatment because of nausea. No patients in the physician choice group discontinued treatment because of nausea or vomiting.
Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were less frequent in the T-DXd arm versus physician’s choice (12.9% vs. 18.0% and 0.3% vs. 2.9%, respectively.)
ILD occurred in 45 patients (12.1%) of those in the T-DXd arm versus 1 (0.6%) in the physician choice arm. Ten patients of the patients in the T-DXd arm had not recovered by the data cutoff point.
Six patients with ILD were retreated following resolution; one discontinued because of an adverse event, two discontinued because of progressive disease, and three remained on the drug. “Given that there was only a small number of patients who were retreated with T-DXd, it’s difficult to make clinically meaningful conclusions on the effect of retreatment following grade IDL events that have resolved,” Dr. Rugo said.
In the big picture, “ILD pneumonitis remains an important identified risk and an adverse event of interest associated with T-DXd,” Dr. Rugo said. “It’s important that we adhere to management guidelines and updated toxicity management guidelines.”
In a discussion, Dr. Rugo said she prescribes three antiemetic drugs to help patients tolerate T-DXd therapy: “It makes a big difference. Anecdotally, it really has improved management of nausea. Start more and back down [as symptoms fade].”
Gustavo Werutsky, MD, PhD, of Moinhos de Vento Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil, the discussant for the presentation, also emphasized the importance of prevention and said he prescribes two or three prophylactic drugs. “In the beginning, we didn’t know these events were so important. A big part of the message is that patients from the beginning need to have a good prophylaxis for the nausea and vomiting.”
The researchers also presented a related report at the conference, an analysis of patient-reported outcomes from DESTINY-Breast02, a randomized phase 3 study of T-DXd (n = 406) versus physician’s choice of treatment (n = 202) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who were resistant/refractory to trastuzumab emtansine.
The analysis, led by Tanja Fehm, MD, of University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany), found that the median time to definitive deterioration was longer with T-DXd versus the other arm per the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life score (14.1 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.71).
The studies were funded by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca, which make T-DXd. Dr. Hugo discloses relationships with Puma, NAPO, Blueprint, Scorpion Therapeutics, Merck, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, OBI, Pfizer, Pionyr, Sermonix, Taiho Oncology, and Veru. Multiple other authors of both studies have various disclosures.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2023
One in five brain injury trials shows errors, signs of spin
LOS ANGELES –
“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”
Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
Defining spin
In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”
Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”
For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).
Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.
According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”
For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.
As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.
The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.
The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.
The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.
Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”
They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).
At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.
A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
Appropriate methodology
Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.
It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”
Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”
Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.
“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”
What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”
No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LOS ANGELES –
“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”
Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
Defining spin
In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”
Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”
For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).
Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.
According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”
For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.
As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.
The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.
The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.
The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.
Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”
They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).
At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.
A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
Appropriate methodology
Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.
It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”
Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”
Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.
“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”
What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”
No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LOS ANGELES –
“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”
Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
Defining spin
In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”
Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”
For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).
Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.
According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”
For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.
As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.
The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.
The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.
The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.
Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”
They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).
At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.
A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
Appropriate methodology
Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.
It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”
Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”
Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.
“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”
What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”
No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AANS 2023
CLL: Black patients die sooner than Whites
The findings, published in the American Journal of Hematology, hint that the racial disparity has shrunk over time, especially within the first few years of the targeted-therapy era. Still, “Black patients had a shorter median overall survival of 7 years compared to 9 years for White patients,” study coauthor Deborah Stephens, DO, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, said in an interview. “Clearly, more research is needed to tease out the biologic or economic barriers to achieving prolonged survival.”
As the researchers noted, CLL is far more common among White patients (5.1 cases per 100,000) than other races (Black patients: 3.2 cases per 100,000; Hispanic patients: 2.1 cases per 100,000; Asian American patients: 1.1 per 100,000). In total, non-White patients make up just 11%-13% of CLL cases in the United States.
According to Dr. Stephens, “little is known or published” about Black patients with CLL, “and it is still a mystery why fewer patients that are Black develop CLL and why this group would have shorter survival.”
Dr. Stephens and colleagues launched the new study – the largest of its kind to date – to understand disparities between White and Black patients over most of the past 20 years. The researchers especially wanted to analyze trends during the last decade, when targeted therapies revolutionized treatment of the disease.
The study authors analyzed data in the National Cancer Database for 97,804 patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 (90.7% White, 7.6% Black, 0.6% Asian, 1.1% other). Of patients who reported ethnicity (n = 93,555), 2.6% were Hispanic.
Black patients were more likely to have begun CLL therapy at diagnosis (35.9%) than were White patients (23.6%), a sign that Black patients had more advanced disease. Black patients also had shorter overall survival (7.0 years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7–7.3 years) vs. White patients (9.1 years, 95% CI, 9.0–9.3 years, P < .001).
“This finding could be due to underlying biologic differences in the pathology of CLL, when comparing patients across racial groups,” Dr. Stephens said. “Additionally, there could be differences in access to care. Notably, there are fewer racial minorities enrolled in clinical trials, and perhaps we are not individualizing therapy for unique biologic factors seen in CLL affecting racial minorities.”
Other factors also could be at play. Black patients were more likely than were White patients to have one or more comorbidities (27.9% vs. 21.3%, P < .001), lack insurance (6.6% vs. 2.1%, P < .001) and live in lower-income neighborhoods (47.7% vs. 13.1%, P < .001).
What explains the gap in outcomes? In an interview, study lead author Victoria Vardell, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that researchers often attribute worse medical outcomes in Black patients to economic and social disparities.
“However, when we adjusted for a number of surrogate markers of health care access, including income, comorbidities, and location, among others, this disparity remained. That indicates that this may be a more complex problem in CLL in particular. Certainly, we cannot adjust for all the socioeconomic strain placed on Black Americans, including those with CLL, but there may be molecular features related to ancestry or environmental exposures that also play a role,” Dr. Vardell said.
She added that “the high cost and difficulty obtaining many novel therapies, particularly in the clinical trial setting, places significantly higher burdens on already disadvantaged populations.”
There is some good news in the new report. “Promisingly, our data suggest that the survival disparity between White and Black patients with CLL may be improving, particularly within the last 5 years, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm significance,” the researchers reported.
Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who has studied racial disparities in CLL, praised the study in an interview. As she noted, it examines an impressively large population.
The explanations for the disparities are still elusive, she said, although it seems clear there are multiple factors at play. “We don’t know if the disease has the same characteristics in African-Americans as in Whites,” Dr. Ferrajoli said. However, she noted, there’s “no indication that the response to treatment is different according to race.”
Moving forward, she said, the study findings “reinforce the fact that we need to pay attention to this population and be quite attentive to their characteristics.”
No study funding was reported. The authors and Dr. Ferrajoli have no disclosures.
The findings, published in the American Journal of Hematology, hint that the racial disparity has shrunk over time, especially within the first few years of the targeted-therapy era. Still, “Black patients had a shorter median overall survival of 7 years compared to 9 years for White patients,” study coauthor Deborah Stephens, DO, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, said in an interview. “Clearly, more research is needed to tease out the biologic or economic barriers to achieving prolonged survival.”
As the researchers noted, CLL is far more common among White patients (5.1 cases per 100,000) than other races (Black patients: 3.2 cases per 100,000; Hispanic patients: 2.1 cases per 100,000; Asian American patients: 1.1 per 100,000). In total, non-White patients make up just 11%-13% of CLL cases in the United States.
According to Dr. Stephens, “little is known or published” about Black patients with CLL, “and it is still a mystery why fewer patients that are Black develop CLL and why this group would have shorter survival.”
Dr. Stephens and colleagues launched the new study – the largest of its kind to date – to understand disparities between White and Black patients over most of the past 20 years. The researchers especially wanted to analyze trends during the last decade, when targeted therapies revolutionized treatment of the disease.
The study authors analyzed data in the National Cancer Database for 97,804 patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 (90.7% White, 7.6% Black, 0.6% Asian, 1.1% other). Of patients who reported ethnicity (n = 93,555), 2.6% were Hispanic.
Black patients were more likely to have begun CLL therapy at diagnosis (35.9%) than were White patients (23.6%), a sign that Black patients had more advanced disease. Black patients also had shorter overall survival (7.0 years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7–7.3 years) vs. White patients (9.1 years, 95% CI, 9.0–9.3 years, P < .001).
“This finding could be due to underlying biologic differences in the pathology of CLL, when comparing patients across racial groups,” Dr. Stephens said. “Additionally, there could be differences in access to care. Notably, there are fewer racial minorities enrolled in clinical trials, and perhaps we are not individualizing therapy for unique biologic factors seen in CLL affecting racial minorities.”
Other factors also could be at play. Black patients were more likely than were White patients to have one or more comorbidities (27.9% vs. 21.3%, P < .001), lack insurance (6.6% vs. 2.1%, P < .001) and live in lower-income neighborhoods (47.7% vs. 13.1%, P < .001).
What explains the gap in outcomes? In an interview, study lead author Victoria Vardell, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that researchers often attribute worse medical outcomes in Black patients to economic and social disparities.
“However, when we adjusted for a number of surrogate markers of health care access, including income, comorbidities, and location, among others, this disparity remained. That indicates that this may be a more complex problem in CLL in particular. Certainly, we cannot adjust for all the socioeconomic strain placed on Black Americans, including those with CLL, but there may be molecular features related to ancestry or environmental exposures that also play a role,” Dr. Vardell said.
She added that “the high cost and difficulty obtaining many novel therapies, particularly in the clinical trial setting, places significantly higher burdens on already disadvantaged populations.”
There is some good news in the new report. “Promisingly, our data suggest that the survival disparity between White and Black patients with CLL may be improving, particularly within the last 5 years, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm significance,” the researchers reported.
Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who has studied racial disparities in CLL, praised the study in an interview. As she noted, it examines an impressively large population.
The explanations for the disparities are still elusive, she said, although it seems clear there are multiple factors at play. “We don’t know if the disease has the same characteristics in African-Americans as in Whites,” Dr. Ferrajoli said. However, she noted, there’s “no indication that the response to treatment is different according to race.”
Moving forward, she said, the study findings “reinforce the fact that we need to pay attention to this population and be quite attentive to their characteristics.”
No study funding was reported. The authors and Dr. Ferrajoli have no disclosures.
The findings, published in the American Journal of Hematology, hint that the racial disparity has shrunk over time, especially within the first few years of the targeted-therapy era. Still, “Black patients had a shorter median overall survival of 7 years compared to 9 years for White patients,” study coauthor Deborah Stephens, DO, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, said in an interview. “Clearly, more research is needed to tease out the biologic or economic barriers to achieving prolonged survival.”
As the researchers noted, CLL is far more common among White patients (5.1 cases per 100,000) than other races (Black patients: 3.2 cases per 100,000; Hispanic patients: 2.1 cases per 100,000; Asian American patients: 1.1 per 100,000). In total, non-White patients make up just 11%-13% of CLL cases in the United States.
According to Dr. Stephens, “little is known or published” about Black patients with CLL, “and it is still a mystery why fewer patients that are Black develop CLL and why this group would have shorter survival.”
Dr. Stephens and colleagues launched the new study – the largest of its kind to date – to understand disparities between White and Black patients over most of the past 20 years. The researchers especially wanted to analyze trends during the last decade, when targeted therapies revolutionized treatment of the disease.
The study authors analyzed data in the National Cancer Database for 97,804 patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 (90.7% White, 7.6% Black, 0.6% Asian, 1.1% other). Of patients who reported ethnicity (n = 93,555), 2.6% were Hispanic.
Black patients were more likely to have begun CLL therapy at diagnosis (35.9%) than were White patients (23.6%), a sign that Black patients had more advanced disease. Black patients also had shorter overall survival (7.0 years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7–7.3 years) vs. White patients (9.1 years, 95% CI, 9.0–9.3 years, P < .001).
“This finding could be due to underlying biologic differences in the pathology of CLL, when comparing patients across racial groups,” Dr. Stephens said. “Additionally, there could be differences in access to care. Notably, there are fewer racial minorities enrolled in clinical trials, and perhaps we are not individualizing therapy for unique biologic factors seen in CLL affecting racial minorities.”
Other factors also could be at play. Black patients were more likely than were White patients to have one or more comorbidities (27.9% vs. 21.3%, P < .001), lack insurance (6.6% vs. 2.1%, P < .001) and live in lower-income neighborhoods (47.7% vs. 13.1%, P < .001).
What explains the gap in outcomes? In an interview, study lead author Victoria Vardell, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that researchers often attribute worse medical outcomes in Black patients to economic and social disparities.
“However, when we adjusted for a number of surrogate markers of health care access, including income, comorbidities, and location, among others, this disparity remained. That indicates that this may be a more complex problem in CLL in particular. Certainly, we cannot adjust for all the socioeconomic strain placed on Black Americans, including those with CLL, but there may be molecular features related to ancestry or environmental exposures that also play a role,” Dr. Vardell said.
She added that “the high cost and difficulty obtaining many novel therapies, particularly in the clinical trial setting, places significantly higher burdens on already disadvantaged populations.”
There is some good news in the new report. “Promisingly, our data suggest that the survival disparity between White and Black patients with CLL may be improving, particularly within the last 5 years, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm significance,” the researchers reported.
Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who has studied racial disparities in CLL, praised the study in an interview. As she noted, it examines an impressively large population.
The explanations for the disparities are still elusive, she said, although it seems clear there are multiple factors at play. “We don’t know if the disease has the same characteristics in African-Americans as in Whites,” Dr. Ferrajoli said. However, she noted, there’s “no indication that the response to treatment is different according to race.”
Moving forward, she said, the study findings “reinforce the fact that we need to pay attention to this population and be quite attentive to their characteristics.”
No study funding was reported. The authors and Dr. Ferrajoli have no disclosures.
FROM AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
Surgeons, intensivists earn more than do colleagues from private insurance
General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.
On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.
None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.
The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.
Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.
This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.
The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.
The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:
- Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
- Cardiology: $1,703,013
- Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
- Dermatology: $729,107
- Family medicine: $697,094
- Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
- Internal medicine: $1,297,200
- Neurology: $1,390,181
- Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
- Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
- Pediatrics: $661,552
- Psychiatry: $1,348,730
- Pulmonology: $1,561,617
- Radiology: $1,015,750
- Rheumatology: $1,705,140
- General surgery: $5,834,508
- Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
- Urology: $2,943,381
Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.
The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.
Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.
The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.
The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.
The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”
A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.
AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.
On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.
None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.
The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.
Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.
This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.
The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.
The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:
- Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
- Cardiology: $1,703,013
- Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
- Dermatology: $729,107
- Family medicine: $697,094
- Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
- Internal medicine: $1,297,200
- Neurology: $1,390,181
- Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
- Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
- Pediatrics: $661,552
- Psychiatry: $1,348,730
- Pulmonology: $1,561,617
- Radiology: $1,015,750
- Rheumatology: $1,705,140
- General surgery: $5,834,508
- Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
- Urology: $2,943,381
Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.
The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.
Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.
The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.
The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.
The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”
A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.
AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.
On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.
None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.
The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.
Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.
This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.
The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.
The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:
- Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
- Cardiology: $1,703,013
- Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
- Dermatology: $729,107
- Family medicine: $697,094
- Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
- Internal medicine: $1,297,200
- Neurology: $1,390,181
- Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
- Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
- Pediatrics: $661,552
- Psychiatry: $1,348,730
- Pulmonology: $1,561,617
- Radiology: $1,015,750
- Rheumatology: $1,705,140
- General surgery: $5,834,508
- Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
- Urology: $2,943,381
Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.
The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.
Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.
The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.
The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.
The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”
A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.
AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
From Beirut to frontline hematology research
“If we start treatment earlier, in the smoldering phase, maybe there is a chance of actually curing the disease and completely getting rid of it,” said Dr. Mouhieddine, 31, a research fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York. “We haven’t proven that yet, and it’s going to take years before we’re able to prove it. I’m hoping to be one of those spearheading the initiative.”
As he develops clinical trials, the young physician scientist has another focus: A deeply personal connection to the very disease he’s trying to cure. Last year Dr. Mouhieddine diagnosed his aunt back in Lebanon with multiple myeloma. “I have always been close to her, and I’m like her son,” he said, and her situation is especially scary because she lives in a country where treatment options are limited.
Dr. Mouhieddine was born and raised in Beirut, the son of a sports journalist father and a mother who worked in a bank. Lebanon’s civil war ended in 1990, shortly before his birth, but political instability returned when he was a child.
“Everything was a disaster,” he recalled. “There was a period of time when there were bombs throughout the city because certain politicians were being targeted. I remember when groups of people would have gunfights in the street.”
Dr. Mouhieddine attended the American University of Beirut, then after college and medical school there, he headed to the United States.
“I wanted to make a difference in medicine. And I knew that if I stayed back home, I wouldn’t be able to,” he said. Fortunately, “everybody has made me feel that I really belong here, and I’ve never felt like I’m an outsider.”
Early on, as he went through fellowships and residency, he developed an interest in multiple myeloma.
Ajai Chari, MD, a colleague of Dr. Mouhieddine’s at Icahn School of Medicine, said in an interview, “I remember meeting him at a conference before he had even started an internal medicine residency, let alone a hematology oncology fellowship. He was already certain he wanted to work in multiple myeloma, due to his work at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.”
Myeloma was especially intriguing to Dr. Mouhieddine because of the rapid rate of progress in treating the disease. “Over the past 10 years, the myeloma field has advanced at such an extremely fast pace, more than any other cancer,” he said. “Maybe 15 years ago, you would tell someone with newly diagnosed myeloma that they had a chance for an average of another 2 years. Now, we tell patients they have 10 years to live on average, which means you could live 15 or 20 years. That alone was astounding to me and piqued my interest in myeloma.”
At the same time, smoldering myeloma – which can be discovered during routine blood work – remains little understood. As the National Cancer Institute explains, “smoldering myeloma is a precancerous condition that alters certain proteins in blood and/or increases plasma cells in bone marrow, but it does not cause symptoms of disease. About half of those diagnosed with the condition, however, will develop multiple myeloma within 5 years.”
“If we understand what drives smoldering myeloma, we may be able to prevent it from progressing to its active form,” said hematologist oncologist Samir Parekh, MD, who works with Dr. Mouhieddine at Icahn School of Medicine. “Or at the minimum, we could better predict who will progress so we can tailor therapy for high-risk patients and minimize toxicity by not overtreating patients who may not need therapy.”
Dr. Mouhieddine’s current work is focusing on developing clinical trials to test whether immunotherapy can snuff out myeloma when it’s at the smoldering stage, “before anything bad happens.
“If a myeloma patient comes in with renal failure, and we treat the myeloma at that stage, it doesn’t mean that the patient’s kidneys are gonna go back to normal. A lot of the damage can be permanent,” he said. “Even when you treat multiple myeloma, and it goes into remission, it ends up coming back. And you just have to go from one therapy to the other.”
In contrast, a successful treatment for smoldering myeloma would prevent progression to the full disease. In other words, it would be a cure – which is now elusive.
Specifically, Dr. Mouhieddine hopes to test whether bispecific antibodies, a type of immunotherapy that enlists the body’s T cells to kill myeloma cells, will be effective in the smoldering phase. Bispecific antibodies are now being explored as treatments for full multiple myeloma when the immune system is weaker, he said, and they may be even more effective earlier, when the body is better equipped to fight off the disease.
Dr. Mouhieddine hopes better treatments for multiple myeloma itself will help save his 64-year-old aunt Hassana, back in Beirut. He diagnosed her in 2022 after she told him that she felt tired all the time and underwent various tests. The woman he calls his “second mom” is doing well, despite struggles to buy medication due to the lack of access to bank funds in Lebanon.
“I’m always going to be afraid that the disease is going to progress or come back at some point,” he said. “Lebanon doesn’t have as many options as people in the U.S. do. Once you exhaust your first option, and maybe your second option, then you don’t have any other options. Here, we have outpatients who exhaust option number 15 and go to option number 16. That’s definitely not the case over there.”
For now, Dr. Mouhieddine is treating patients and working to launch clinical trials into smoldering myeloma. “His work ethic is incredible,” said his colleague, Dr. Chari. “He has seen multiple projects to publication, and he develops deep connections with his patients and follows up on their care whether or not he is in clinic on a particular day.”
Dr. Parekh, another colleague, said Dr. Mouhieddine can even be a role model. “Other trainees may benefit from thinking about their career early on and exploring both lab and clinical research projects, so that they can develop the necessary experience to be competitive in academia later on.”
His workload can a burden for Dr. Mouhieddine, who is Muslim. He expressed regret that his busy schedule does not always permit him to fast during Ramadan. On a nonmedical front, his recent efforts have paid off. In March 2023 Dr. Mouhieddine became a U.S. citizen.
“It’s surreal,” he said, “but also a dream come true. I feel very grateful, like it’s like an appreciation of who I am, what I’ve done, and what I can do for this country.”
“If we start treatment earlier, in the smoldering phase, maybe there is a chance of actually curing the disease and completely getting rid of it,” said Dr. Mouhieddine, 31, a research fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York. “We haven’t proven that yet, and it’s going to take years before we’re able to prove it. I’m hoping to be one of those spearheading the initiative.”
As he develops clinical trials, the young physician scientist has another focus: A deeply personal connection to the very disease he’s trying to cure. Last year Dr. Mouhieddine diagnosed his aunt back in Lebanon with multiple myeloma. “I have always been close to her, and I’m like her son,” he said, and her situation is especially scary because she lives in a country where treatment options are limited.
Dr. Mouhieddine was born and raised in Beirut, the son of a sports journalist father and a mother who worked in a bank. Lebanon’s civil war ended in 1990, shortly before his birth, but political instability returned when he was a child.
“Everything was a disaster,” he recalled. “There was a period of time when there were bombs throughout the city because certain politicians were being targeted. I remember when groups of people would have gunfights in the street.”
Dr. Mouhieddine attended the American University of Beirut, then after college and medical school there, he headed to the United States.
“I wanted to make a difference in medicine. And I knew that if I stayed back home, I wouldn’t be able to,” he said. Fortunately, “everybody has made me feel that I really belong here, and I’ve never felt like I’m an outsider.”
Early on, as he went through fellowships and residency, he developed an interest in multiple myeloma.
Ajai Chari, MD, a colleague of Dr. Mouhieddine’s at Icahn School of Medicine, said in an interview, “I remember meeting him at a conference before he had even started an internal medicine residency, let alone a hematology oncology fellowship. He was already certain he wanted to work in multiple myeloma, due to his work at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.”
Myeloma was especially intriguing to Dr. Mouhieddine because of the rapid rate of progress in treating the disease. “Over the past 10 years, the myeloma field has advanced at such an extremely fast pace, more than any other cancer,” he said. “Maybe 15 years ago, you would tell someone with newly diagnosed myeloma that they had a chance for an average of another 2 years. Now, we tell patients they have 10 years to live on average, which means you could live 15 or 20 years. That alone was astounding to me and piqued my interest in myeloma.”
At the same time, smoldering myeloma – which can be discovered during routine blood work – remains little understood. As the National Cancer Institute explains, “smoldering myeloma is a precancerous condition that alters certain proteins in blood and/or increases plasma cells in bone marrow, but it does not cause symptoms of disease. About half of those diagnosed with the condition, however, will develop multiple myeloma within 5 years.”
“If we understand what drives smoldering myeloma, we may be able to prevent it from progressing to its active form,” said hematologist oncologist Samir Parekh, MD, who works with Dr. Mouhieddine at Icahn School of Medicine. “Or at the minimum, we could better predict who will progress so we can tailor therapy for high-risk patients and minimize toxicity by not overtreating patients who may not need therapy.”
Dr. Mouhieddine’s current work is focusing on developing clinical trials to test whether immunotherapy can snuff out myeloma when it’s at the smoldering stage, “before anything bad happens.
“If a myeloma patient comes in with renal failure, and we treat the myeloma at that stage, it doesn’t mean that the patient’s kidneys are gonna go back to normal. A lot of the damage can be permanent,” he said. “Even when you treat multiple myeloma, and it goes into remission, it ends up coming back. And you just have to go from one therapy to the other.”
In contrast, a successful treatment for smoldering myeloma would prevent progression to the full disease. In other words, it would be a cure – which is now elusive.
Specifically, Dr. Mouhieddine hopes to test whether bispecific antibodies, a type of immunotherapy that enlists the body’s T cells to kill myeloma cells, will be effective in the smoldering phase. Bispecific antibodies are now being explored as treatments for full multiple myeloma when the immune system is weaker, he said, and they may be even more effective earlier, when the body is better equipped to fight off the disease.
Dr. Mouhieddine hopes better treatments for multiple myeloma itself will help save his 64-year-old aunt Hassana, back in Beirut. He diagnosed her in 2022 after she told him that she felt tired all the time and underwent various tests. The woman he calls his “second mom” is doing well, despite struggles to buy medication due to the lack of access to bank funds in Lebanon.
“I’m always going to be afraid that the disease is going to progress or come back at some point,” he said. “Lebanon doesn’t have as many options as people in the U.S. do. Once you exhaust your first option, and maybe your second option, then you don’t have any other options. Here, we have outpatients who exhaust option number 15 and go to option number 16. That’s definitely not the case over there.”
For now, Dr. Mouhieddine is treating patients and working to launch clinical trials into smoldering myeloma. “His work ethic is incredible,” said his colleague, Dr. Chari. “He has seen multiple projects to publication, and he develops deep connections with his patients and follows up on their care whether or not he is in clinic on a particular day.”
Dr. Parekh, another colleague, said Dr. Mouhieddine can even be a role model. “Other trainees may benefit from thinking about their career early on and exploring both lab and clinical research projects, so that they can develop the necessary experience to be competitive in academia later on.”
His workload can a burden for Dr. Mouhieddine, who is Muslim. He expressed regret that his busy schedule does not always permit him to fast during Ramadan. On a nonmedical front, his recent efforts have paid off. In March 2023 Dr. Mouhieddine became a U.S. citizen.
“It’s surreal,” he said, “but also a dream come true. I feel very grateful, like it’s like an appreciation of who I am, what I’ve done, and what I can do for this country.”
“If we start treatment earlier, in the smoldering phase, maybe there is a chance of actually curing the disease and completely getting rid of it,” said Dr. Mouhieddine, 31, a research fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York. “We haven’t proven that yet, and it’s going to take years before we’re able to prove it. I’m hoping to be one of those spearheading the initiative.”
As he develops clinical trials, the young physician scientist has another focus: A deeply personal connection to the very disease he’s trying to cure. Last year Dr. Mouhieddine diagnosed his aunt back in Lebanon with multiple myeloma. “I have always been close to her, and I’m like her son,” he said, and her situation is especially scary because she lives in a country where treatment options are limited.
Dr. Mouhieddine was born and raised in Beirut, the son of a sports journalist father and a mother who worked in a bank. Lebanon’s civil war ended in 1990, shortly before his birth, but political instability returned when he was a child.
“Everything was a disaster,” he recalled. “There was a period of time when there were bombs throughout the city because certain politicians were being targeted. I remember when groups of people would have gunfights in the street.”
Dr. Mouhieddine attended the American University of Beirut, then after college and medical school there, he headed to the United States.
“I wanted to make a difference in medicine. And I knew that if I stayed back home, I wouldn’t be able to,” he said. Fortunately, “everybody has made me feel that I really belong here, and I’ve never felt like I’m an outsider.”
Early on, as he went through fellowships and residency, he developed an interest in multiple myeloma.
Ajai Chari, MD, a colleague of Dr. Mouhieddine’s at Icahn School of Medicine, said in an interview, “I remember meeting him at a conference before he had even started an internal medicine residency, let alone a hematology oncology fellowship. He was already certain he wanted to work in multiple myeloma, due to his work at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.”
Myeloma was especially intriguing to Dr. Mouhieddine because of the rapid rate of progress in treating the disease. “Over the past 10 years, the myeloma field has advanced at such an extremely fast pace, more than any other cancer,” he said. “Maybe 15 years ago, you would tell someone with newly diagnosed myeloma that they had a chance for an average of another 2 years. Now, we tell patients they have 10 years to live on average, which means you could live 15 or 20 years. That alone was astounding to me and piqued my interest in myeloma.”
At the same time, smoldering myeloma – which can be discovered during routine blood work – remains little understood. As the National Cancer Institute explains, “smoldering myeloma is a precancerous condition that alters certain proteins in blood and/or increases plasma cells in bone marrow, but it does not cause symptoms of disease. About half of those diagnosed with the condition, however, will develop multiple myeloma within 5 years.”
“If we understand what drives smoldering myeloma, we may be able to prevent it from progressing to its active form,” said hematologist oncologist Samir Parekh, MD, who works with Dr. Mouhieddine at Icahn School of Medicine. “Or at the minimum, we could better predict who will progress so we can tailor therapy for high-risk patients and minimize toxicity by not overtreating patients who may not need therapy.”
Dr. Mouhieddine’s current work is focusing on developing clinical trials to test whether immunotherapy can snuff out myeloma when it’s at the smoldering stage, “before anything bad happens.
“If a myeloma patient comes in with renal failure, and we treat the myeloma at that stage, it doesn’t mean that the patient’s kidneys are gonna go back to normal. A lot of the damage can be permanent,” he said. “Even when you treat multiple myeloma, and it goes into remission, it ends up coming back. And you just have to go from one therapy to the other.”
In contrast, a successful treatment for smoldering myeloma would prevent progression to the full disease. In other words, it would be a cure – which is now elusive.
Specifically, Dr. Mouhieddine hopes to test whether bispecific antibodies, a type of immunotherapy that enlists the body’s T cells to kill myeloma cells, will be effective in the smoldering phase. Bispecific antibodies are now being explored as treatments for full multiple myeloma when the immune system is weaker, he said, and they may be even more effective earlier, when the body is better equipped to fight off the disease.
Dr. Mouhieddine hopes better treatments for multiple myeloma itself will help save his 64-year-old aunt Hassana, back in Beirut. He diagnosed her in 2022 after she told him that she felt tired all the time and underwent various tests. The woman he calls his “second mom” is doing well, despite struggles to buy medication due to the lack of access to bank funds in Lebanon.
“I’m always going to be afraid that the disease is going to progress or come back at some point,” he said. “Lebanon doesn’t have as many options as people in the U.S. do. Once you exhaust your first option, and maybe your second option, then you don’t have any other options. Here, we have outpatients who exhaust option number 15 and go to option number 16. That’s definitely not the case over there.”
For now, Dr. Mouhieddine is treating patients and working to launch clinical trials into smoldering myeloma. “His work ethic is incredible,” said his colleague, Dr. Chari. “He has seen multiple projects to publication, and he develops deep connections with his patients and follows up on their care whether or not he is in clinic on a particular day.”
Dr. Parekh, another colleague, said Dr. Mouhieddine can even be a role model. “Other trainees may benefit from thinking about their career early on and exploring both lab and clinical research projects, so that they can develop the necessary experience to be competitive in academia later on.”
His workload can a burden for Dr. Mouhieddine, who is Muslim. He expressed regret that his busy schedule does not always permit him to fast during Ramadan. On a nonmedical front, his recent efforts have paid off. In March 2023 Dr. Mouhieddine became a U.S. citizen.
“It’s surreal,” he said, “but also a dream come true. I feel very grateful, like it’s like an appreciation of who I am, what I’ve done, and what I can do for this country.”