Breast Cancer ICYMI

Two plasma biomarkers were notably associated with when athletes return to action after concussions, according to a new study of collegiate athletes and recovery time. “Although preliminary, the current results highlight the potential role of biomarkers in tracking neuronal recovery, which may be associated with duration of [return to sport],” wrote Cassandra L. Pattinson, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., along with coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

To determine if three specific blood biomarkers – total tau protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain protein (NfL) – can help predict when athletes should return from sports-related concussions, a multicenter, prospective diagnostic study was launched and led by the Advanced Research Core (ARC) of the Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium. The consortium is a joint effort of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and the U.S. Department of Defense.

From among the CARE ARC database, researchers evaluated 127 eligible student athletes who had experienced a sports-related concussion, underwent clinical testing and blood collection before and after their injuries, and returned to their sports. Their average age was 18.9 years old, 76% were men, and 65% were White. Biomarker levels were measured from nonfasting blood samples via ultrasensitive single molecule array technology. As current NCAA guidelines indicate that most athletes will be asymptomatic roughly 2 weeks after a concussion, the study used 14 days as a cutoff period.

Among the 127 athletes, the median return-to-sport time was 14 days; 65 returned to their sports in less than 14 days while 62 returned to their sports in 14 days or more. According to the study’s linear mixed models, athletes with a return-to-sport time of 14 days or longer had significantly higher total tau levels at 24-48 hours post injury (mean difference –0.51 pg/mL, 95% confidence interval, –0.88 to –0.14; P  = .008) and when symptoms had resolved (mean difference –0.71 pg/mL, 95% CI, –1.09 to –0.34; P < .001) compared with athletes with a return-to-sport time of less than 14 days. Athletes who returned in 14 days or more also had comparatively lower levels of GFAP postinjury than did those who returned in under 14 days (4.39 pg/mL versus 4.72 pg/mL; P = .04).
 

Preliminary steps toward an appropriate point-of-care test

“This particular study is one of several emerging studies on what these biomarkers look like,” Brian W. Hainline, MD, chief medical officer of the NCAA, said in an interview. “It’s all still very preliminary – you couldn’t make policy changes based on what we have – but the data is accumulating. Ultimately, we should be able to perform a multivariate analysis of all the different objective biomarkers, looking at repetitive head impact exposure, looking at imaging, looking at these blood-based biomarkers. Then you can say, ‘OK, what can we do? Can we actually predict recovery, who is likely or less likely to do well?’ ”

“It’s not realistic to be taking blood samples all the time,” said Dr. Hainline, who was not involved in the study. “Another goal, once we know which biomarkers are valuable, is to convert to a point-of-care test. You get a finger prick or even a salivary test and we get the result immediately; that’s the direction that all of this is heading. But first, we have to lay out the groundwork. We envision a day, in the not too distant future, where we can get this information much more quickly.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to standardize the time of biomarker collection and the fact that they analyzed a “relatively small number of athletes” who met their specific criteria. That said, they emphasized that their work is based on “the largest prospective sample of sports-related concussions in athletes to date” and that they “anticipate that we will be able to continue to gather a more representative sample” in the future to better generalize to the larger collegiate community.

The study was supported by the Grand Alliance Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium, which was funded in part by the NCAA and the Department of Defense. The authors disclosed receiving grants and travel reimbursements from – or working as advisers or consultants for – various organizations, college programs, and sports leagues.

SOURCE: Pattinson CL, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13191.

Two plasma biomarkers were notably associated with when athletes return to action after concussions, according to a new study of collegiate athletes and recovery time. “Although preliminary, the current results highlight the potential role of biomarkers in tracking neuronal recovery, which may be associated with duration of [return to sport],” wrote Cassandra L. Pattinson, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., along with coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

To determine if three specific blood biomarkers – total tau protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain protein (NfL) – can help predict when athletes should return from sports-related concussions, a multicenter, prospective diagnostic study was launched and led by the Advanced Research Core (ARC) of the Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium. The consortium is a joint effort of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and the U.S. Department of Defense.

From among the CARE ARC database, researchers evaluated 127 eligible student athletes who had experienced a sports-related concussion, underwent clinical testing and blood collection before and after their injuries, and returned to their sports. Their average age was 18.9 years old, 76% were men, and 65% were White. Biomarker levels were measured from nonfasting blood samples via ultrasensitive single molecule array technology. As current NCAA guidelines indicate that most athletes will be asymptomatic roughly 2 weeks after a concussion, the study used 14 days as a cutoff period.

Among the 127 athletes, the median return-to-sport time was 14 days; 65 returned to their sports in less than 14 days while 62 returned to their sports in 14 days or more. According to the study’s linear mixed models, athletes with a return-to-sport time of 14 days or longer had significantly higher total tau levels at 24-48 hours post injury (mean difference –0.51 pg/mL, 95% confidence interval, –0.88 to –0.14; P  = .008) and when symptoms had resolved (mean difference –0.71 pg/mL, 95% CI, –1.09 to –0.34; P < .001) compared with athletes with a return-to-sport time of less than 14 days. Athletes who returned in 14 days or more also had comparatively lower levels of GFAP postinjury than did those who returned in under 14 days (4.39 pg/mL versus 4.72 pg/mL; P = .04).
 

Preliminary steps toward an appropriate point-of-care test

“This particular study is one of several emerging studies on what these biomarkers look like,” Brian W. Hainline, MD, chief medical officer of the NCAA, said in an interview. “It’s all still very preliminary – you couldn’t make policy changes based on what we have – but the data is accumulating. Ultimately, we should be able to perform a multivariate analysis of all the different objective biomarkers, looking at repetitive head impact exposure, looking at imaging, looking at these blood-based biomarkers. Then you can say, ‘OK, what can we do? Can we actually predict recovery, who is likely or less likely to do well?’ ”

“It’s not realistic to be taking blood samples all the time,” said Dr. Hainline, who was not involved in the study. “Another goal, once we know which biomarkers are valuable, is to convert to a point-of-care test. You get a finger prick or even a salivary test and we get the result immediately; that’s the direction that all of this is heading. But first, we have to lay out the groundwork. We envision a day, in the not too distant future, where we can get this information much more quickly.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to standardize the time of biomarker collection and the fact that they analyzed a “relatively small number of athletes” who met their specific criteria. That said, they emphasized that their work is based on “the largest prospective sample of sports-related concussions in athletes to date” and that they “anticipate that we will be able to continue to gather a more representative sample” in the future to better generalize to the larger collegiate community.

The study was supported by the Grand Alliance Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium, which was funded in part by the NCAA and the Department of Defense. The authors disclosed receiving grants and travel reimbursements from – or working as advisers or consultants for – various organizations, college programs, and sports leagues.

SOURCE: Pattinson CL, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13191.

Two plasma biomarkers were notably associated with when athletes return to action after concussions, according to a new study of collegiate athletes and recovery time. “Although preliminary, the current results highlight the potential role of biomarkers in tracking neuronal recovery, which may be associated with duration of [return to sport],” wrote Cassandra L. Pattinson, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., along with coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

To determine if three specific blood biomarkers – total tau protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain protein (NfL) – can help predict when athletes should return from sports-related concussions, a multicenter, prospective diagnostic study was launched and led by the Advanced Research Core (ARC) of the Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium. The consortium is a joint effort of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and the U.S. Department of Defense.

From among the CARE ARC database, researchers evaluated 127 eligible student athletes who had experienced a sports-related concussion, underwent clinical testing and blood collection before and after their injuries, and returned to their sports. Their average age was 18.9 years old, 76% were men, and 65% were White. Biomarker levels were measured from nonfasting blood samples via ultrasensitive single molecule array technology. As current NCAA guidelines indicate that most athletes will be asymptomatic roughly 2 weeks after a concussion, the study used 14 days as a cutoff period.

Among the 127 athletes, the median return-to-sport time was 14 days; 65 returned to their sports in less than 14 days while 62 returned to their sports in 14 days or more. According to the study’s linear mixed models, athletes with a return-to-sport time of 14 days or longer had significantly higher total tau levels at 24-48 hours post injury (mean difference –0.51 pg/mL, 95% confidence interval, –0.88 to –0.14; P  = .008) and when symptoms had resolved (mean difference –0.71 pg/mL, 95% CI, –1.09 to –0.34; P < .001) compared with athletes with a return-to-sport time of less than 14 days. Athletes who returned in 14 days or more also had comparatively lower levels of GFAP postinjury than did those who returned in under 14 days (4.39 pg/mL versus 4.72 pg/mL; P = .04).
 

Preliminary steps toward an appropriate point-of-care test

“This particular study is one of several emerging studies on what these biomarkers look like,” Brian W. Hainline, MD, chief medical officer of the NCAA, said in an interview. “It’s all still very preliminary – you couldn’t make policy changes based on what we have – but the data is accumulating. Ultimately, we should be able to perform a multivariate analysis of all the different objective biomarkers, looking at repetitive head impact exposure, looking at imaging, looking at these blood-based biomarkers. Then you can say, ‘OK, what can we do? Can we actually predict recovery, who is likely or less likely to do well?’ ”

“It’s not realistic to be taking blood samples all the time,” said Dr. Hainline, who was not involved in the study. “Another goal, once we know which biomarkers are valuable, is to convert to a point-of-care test. You get a finger prick or even a salivary test and we get the result immediately; that’s the direction that all of this is heading. But first, we have to lay out the groundwork. We envision a day, in the not too distant future, where we can get this information much more quickly.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to standardize the time of biomarker collection and the fact that they analyzed a “relatively small number of athletes” who met their specific criteria. That said, they emphasized that their work is based on “the largest prospective sample of sports-related concussions in athletes to date” and that they “anticipate that we will be able to continue to gather a more representative sample” in the future to better generalize to the larger collegiate community.

The study was supported by the Grand Alliance Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium, which was funded in part by the NCAA and the Department of Defense. The authors disclosed receiving grants and travel reimbursements from – or working as advisers or consultants for – various organizations, college programs, and sports leagues.

SOURCE: Pattinson CL, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13191.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

The mortality burden associated with dementia may be 2.7 times greater than estimated, according to an analysis of a prospective cohort study. This burden may be greatest among non-Hispanic black older adults, compared with Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites. This burden also is significantly greater among people with less than a high school education, compared with those with a college education.

The study results underscore the importance of broadening access to population-based interventions that focus on dementia prevention and care, the investigators wrote. “Future research could examine the extent to which deaths attributable to dementia and underestimation of dementia as an underlying cause of death on death certificates might have changed over time,” wrote Andrew C. Stokes, PhD, assistant professor of global health at the Boston University School of Public Health, and colleagues.

The study was published online Aug. 24 in JAMA Neurology.

In 2019, approximately 5.6 million adults in the United States who were aged 65 years or older had Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, or mixed-cause dementia. A further 18.8% of Americans in this age group had cognitive impairment without dementia (CIND). About one third of patients with CIND may develop Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) within 5 years.

Research suggests that medical examiners significantly underreport ADRD on death certificates. One community-based study, for example, found that only 25% of deaths in patients with dementia had Alzheimer’s disease listed on the death certificates. Other research found that deaths in patients with dementia were often coded using more proximate causes, such as cardiovascular disease, sepsis, and pneumonia.
 

Health and retirement study

Dr. Stokes and colleagues examined data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to evaluate the association of dementia and CIND with all-cause mortality. The HRS is a longitudinal cohort study of adults older than 50 years who live in the community. Its sample is nationally representative. The HRS investigators also initiated the Aging, Demographics, and Memory study to develop a procedure for assessing cognitive status in the HRS sample.

In their study, Dr. Stokes and colleagues included adults who had been sampled in the 2000 wave of HRS. They focused on participants between ages 70 and 99 years at baseline, and their final sample included 7,342 older adults. To identify dementia status, the researchers used the Langa–Weir score cutoff, which is based on tests of immediate and delayed recall of 10 words, a serial 7-second task, and a backward counting task. They also classified dementia status using the Herzog–Wallace, Wu, Hurd, and modified Hurd algorithms.

At baseline, the researchers measured age, sex, race or ethnicity, educational attainment, smoking status, self-reported disease diagnoses, and U.S. Census division as covariates. The National Center for Health Statistics linked HRS data with National Death Index records. These linked records include underlying cause of death and any mention of a condition or cause of death on the death certificate. The researchers compared the percentage of deaths attributable to ADRD according to a population attributable fraction estimate with the proportion of dementia-related deaths according to underlying causes and with any mention of dementia on death certificates.

The sample of 7,342 older adults included 4,348 (60.3%) women. Data for 1,030 (13.4%) people were reported by proxy. At baseline, most participants (64.0%) were between ages 70 and 79 years, 31% were between ages 80 and 89, and 5% were between ages 90 and 99 years. The prevalence of dementia in the complete sample was 14.3%, and the prevalence of CIND was 24.7%. The prevalence of dementia (22.4%) and CIND (29.3%) was higher among decedents than among the full population.

The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 2.53 among participants with dementia and 1.53 among patients with CIND. Although 13.6% of deaths were attributable to dementia, the proportion of deaths assigned to dementia as an underlying cause on death certificates was 5.0%. This discrepancy suggests that dementia is underreported by more than a factor of 2.7.

The mortality burden of dementia was 24.7% in non-Hispanic black older adults, 20.7% in Hispanic white participants, and 12.2% in non-Hispanic white participants. In addition, the mortality burden of dementia was significantly greater among participants with less than a high school education (16.2%) than among participants with a college education (9.8%).

The degree to which the underlying cause of death underestimated the mortality burden of dementia varied by sociodemographic characteristics, health status, and geography. The burden was underestimated by a factor of 7.1 among non-Hispanic black participants, a factor of 4.1 among Hispanic participants, and a factor of 2.3 among non-Hispanic white participants. The burden was underestimated by a factor of 3.5 in men and a factor of 2.4 in women. In addition, the burden was underestimated by a factor of 3.0 among participants with less than a high school education, by a factor of 2.3 among participants with a high school education, by a factor of 1.9 in participants with some college, and by a factor of 2.5 among participants with a college or higher education.

One of the study’s strengths was its population attributable fraction analysis, which reduced the risk of overestimating the mortality burden of dementia, Dr. Stokes and colleagues wrote. Examining CIND is valuable because of its high prevalence and consequent influence on outcomes in the population, even though CIND is associated with a lower mortality risk, they added. Nevertheless, the investigators were unable to assess mortality for dementia subtypes, and the classifications of dementia status and CIND may be subject to measurement error.
 

Underestimation is systematic

“This study is eye-opening in that it highlights the systematic underestimation of deaths attributable to dementia,” said Costantino Iadecola, MD, Anne Parrish Titzell professor of neurology and director and chair of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. The study’s main strength is that it is nationally representative, but the data must be confirmed in a larger population, he added.

The results will clarify the effect of dementia on mortality for neurologists, and geriatricians should be made aware of them, said Dr. Iadecola. “These data should be valuable to rationalize public health efforts and related funding decisions concerning research and community support.”

Further research could determine the mortality of dementia subgroups, “especially dementias linked to vascular factors in which prevention may be effective,” said Dr. Iadecola. “In the older population, vascular factors may play a more preeminent role, and it may help focus preventive approaches.”

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Stokes received grants from Ethicon that were unrelated to this study. Dr. Iadecola serves on the scientific advisory board of Broadview Venture.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stokes AC et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2831.

The mortality burden associated with dementia may be 2.7 times greater than estimated, according to an analysis of a prospective cohort study. This burden may be greatest among non-Hispanic black older adults, compared with Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites. This burden also is significantly greater among people with less than a high school education, compared with those with a college education.

The study results underscore the importance of broadening access to population-based interventions that focus on dementia prevention and care, the investigators wrote. “Future research could examine the extent to which deaths attributable to dementia and underestimation of dementia as an underlying cause of death on death certificates might have changed over time,” wrote Andrew C. Stokes, PhD, assistant professor of global health at the Boston University School of Public Health, and colleagues.

The study was published online Aug. 24 in JAMA Neurology.

In 2019, approximately 5.6 million adults in the United States who were aged 65 years or older had Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, or mixed-cause dementia. A further 18.8% of Americans in this age group had cognitive impairment without dementia (CIND). About one third of patients with CIND may develop Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) within 5 years.

Research suggests that medical examiners significantly underreport ADRD on death certificates. One community-based study, for example, found that only 25% of deaths in patients with dementia had Alzheimer’s disease listed on the death certificates. Other research found that deaths in patients with dementia were often coded using more proximate causes, such as cardiovascular disease, sepsis, and pneumonia.
 

Health and retirement study

Dr. Stokes and colleagues examined data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to evaluate the association of dementia and CIND with all-cause mortality. The HRS is a longitudinal cohort study of adults older than 50 years who live in the community. Its sample is nationally representative. The HRS investigators also initiated the Aging, Demographics, and Memory study to develop a procedure for assessing cognitive status in the HRS sample.

In their study, Dr. Stokes and colleagues included adults who had been sampled in the 2000 wave of HRS. They focused on participants between ages 70 and 99 years at baseline, and their final sample included 7,342 older adults. To identify dementia status, the researchers used the Langa–Weir score cutoff, which is based on tests of immediate and delayed recall of 10 words, a serial 7-second task, and a backward counting task. They also classified dementia status using the Herzog–Wallace, Wu, Hurd, and modified Hurd algorithms.

At baseline, the researchers measured age, sex, race or ethnicity, educational attainment, smoking status, self-reported disease diagnoses, and U.S. Census division as covariates. The National Center for Health Statistics linked HRS data with National Death Index records. These linked records include underlying cause of death and any mention of a condition or cause of death on the death certificate. The researchers compared the percentage of deaths attributable to ADRD according to a population attributable fraction estimate with the proportion of dementia-related deaths according to underlying causes and with any mention of dementia on death certificates.

The sample of 7,342 older adults included 4,348 (60.3%) women. Data for 1,030 (13.4%) people were reported by proxy. At baseline, most participants (64.0%) were between ages 70 and 79 years, 31% were between ages 80 and 89, and 5% were between ages 90 and 99 years. The prevalence of dementia in the complete sample was 14.3%, and the prevalence of CIND was 24.7%. The prevalence of dementia (22.4%) and CIND (29.3%) was higher among decedents than among the full population.

The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 2.53 among participants with dementia and 1.53 among patients with CIND. Although 13.6% of deaths were attributable to dementia, the proportion of deaths assigned to dementia as an underlying cause on death certificates was 5.0%. This discrepancy suggests that dementia is underreported by more than a factor of 2.7.

The mortality burden of dementia was 24.7% in non-Hispanic black older adults, 20.7% in Hispanic white participants, and 12.2% in non-Hispanic white participants. In addition, the mortality burden of dementia was significantly greater among participants with less than a high school education (16.2%) than among participants with a college education (9.8%).

The degree to which the underlying cause of death underestimated the mortality burden of dementia varied by sociodemographic characteristics, health status, and geography. The burden was underestimated by a factor of 7.1 among non-Hispanic black participants, a factor of 4.1 among Hispanic participants, and a factor of 2.3 among non-Hispanic white participants. The burden was underestimated by a factor of 3.5 in men and a factor of 2.4 in women. In addition, the burden was underestimated by a factor of 3.0 among participants with less than a high school education, by a factor of 2.3 among participants with a high school education, by a factor of 1.9 in participants with some college, and by a factor of 2.5 among participants with a college or higher education.

One of the study’s strengths was its population attributable fraction analysis, which reduced the risk of overestimating the mortality burden of dementia, Dr. Stokes and colleagues wrote. Examining CIND is valuable because of its high prevalence and consequent influence on outcomes in the population, even though CIND is associated with a lower mortality risk, they added. Nevertheless, the investigators were unable to assess mortality for dementia subtypes, and the classifications of dementia status and CIND may be subject to measurement error.
 

Underestimation is systematic

“This study is eye-opening in that it highlights the systematic underestimation of deaths attributable to dementia,” said Costantino Iadecola, MD, Anne Parrish Titzell professor of neurology and director and chair of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. The study’s main strength is that it is nationally representative, but the data must be confirmed in a larger population, he added.

The results will clarify the effect of dementia on mortality for neurologists, and geriatricians should be made aware of them, said Dr. Iadecola. “These data should be valuable to rationalize public health efforts and related funding decisions concerning research and community support.”

Further research could determine the mortality of dementia subgroups, “especially dementias linked to vascular factors in which prevention may be effective,” said Dr. Iadecola. “In the older population, vascular factors may play a more preeminent role, and it may help focus preventive approaches.”

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Stokes received grants from Ethicon that were unrelated to this study. Dr. Iadecola serves on the scientific advisory board of Broadview Venture.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stokes AC et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2831.

The mortality burden associated with dementia may be 2.7 times greater than estimated, according to an analysis of a prospective cohort study. This burden may be greatest among non-Hispanic black older adults, compared with Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites. This burden also is significantly greater among people with less than a high school education, compared with those with a college education.

The study results underscore the importance of broadening access to population-based interventions that focus on dementia prevention and care, the investigators wrote. “Future research could examine the extent to which deaths attributable to dementia and underestimation of dementia as an underlying cause of death on death certificates might have changed over time,” wrote Andrew C. Stokes, PhD, assistant professor of global health at the Boston University School of Public Health, and colleagues.

The study was published online Aug. 24 in JAMA Neurology.

In 2019, approximately 5.6 million adults in the United States who were aged 65 years or older had Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, or mixed-cause dementia. A further 18.8% of Americans in this age group had cognitive impairment without dementia (CIND). About one third of patients with CIND may develop Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) within 5 years.

Research suggests that medical examiners significantly underreport ADRD on death certificates. One community-based study, for example, found that only 25% of deaths in patients with dementia had Alzheimer’s disease listed on the death certificates. Other research found that deaths in patients with dementia were often coded using more proximate causes, such as cardiovascular disease, sepsis, and pneumonia.
 

Health and retirement study

Dr. Stokes and colleagues examined data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to evaluate the association of dementia and CIND with all-cause mortality. The HRS is a longitudinal cohort study of adults older than 50 years who live in the community. Its sample is nationally representative. The HRS investigators also initiated the Aging, Demographics, and Memory study to develop a procedure for assessing cognitive status in the HRS sample.

In their study, Dr. Stokes and colleagues included adults who had been sampled in the 2000 wave of HRS. They focused on participants between ages 70 and 99 years at baseline, and their final sample included 7,342 older adults. To identify dementia status, the researchers used the Langa–Weir score cutoff, which is based on tests of immediate and delayed recall of 10 words, a serial 7-second task, and a backward counting task. They also classified dementia status using the Herzog–Wallace, Wu, Hurd, and modified Hurd algorithms.

At baseline, the researchers measured age, sex, race or ethnicity, educational attainment, smoking status, self-reported disease diagnoses, and U.S. Census division as covariates. The National Center for Health Statistics linked HRS data with National Death Index records. These linked records include underlying cause of death and any mention of a condition or cause of death on the death certificate. The researchers compared the percentage of deaths attributable to ADRD according to a population attributable fraction estimate with the proportion of dementia-related deaths according to underlying causes and with any mention of dementia on death certificates.

The sample of 7,342 older adults included 4,348 (60.3%) women. Data for 1,030 (13.4%) people were reported by proxy. At baseline, most participants (64.0%) were between ages 70 and 79 years, 31% were between ages 80 and 89, and 5% were between ages 90 and 99 years. The prevalence of dementia in the complete sample was 14.3%, and the prevalence of CIND was 24.7%. The prevalence of dementia (22.4%) and CIND (29.3%) was higher among decedents than among the full population.

The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 2.53 among participants with dementia and 1.53 among patients with CIND. Although 13.6% of deaths were attributable to dementia, the proportion of deaths assigned to dementia as an underlying cause on death certificates was 5.0%. This discrepancy suggests that dementia is underreported by more than a factor of 2.7.

The mortality burden of dementia was 24.7% in non-Hispanic black older adults, 20.7% in Hispanic white participants, and 12.2% in non-Hispanic white participants. In addition, the mortality burden of dementia was significantly greater among participants with less than a high school education (16.2%) than among participants with a college education (9.8%).

The degree to which the underlying cause of death underestimated the mortality burden of dementia varied by sociodemographic characteristics, health status, and geography. The burden was underestimated by a factor of 7.1 among non-Hispanic black participants, a factor of 4.1 among Hispanic participants, and a factor of 2.3 among non-Hispanic white participants. The burden was underestimated by a factor of 3.5 in men and a factor of 2.4 in women. In addition, the burden was underestimated by a factor of 3.0 among participants with less than a high school education, by a factor of 2.3 among participants with a high school education, by a factor of 1.9 in participants with some college, and by a factor of 2.5 among participants with a college or higher education.

One of the study’s strengths was its population attributable fraction analysis, which reduced the risk of overestimating the mortality burden of dementia, Dr. Stokes and colleagues wrote. Examining CIND is valuable because of its high prevalence and consequent influence on outcomes in the population, even though CIND is associated with a lower mortality risk, they added. Nevertheless, the investigators were unable to assess mortality for dementia subtypes, and the classifications of dementia status and CIND may be subject to measurement error.
 

Underestimation is systematic

“This study is eye-opening in that it highlights the systematic underestimation of deaths attributable to dementia,” said Costantino Iadecola, MD, Anne Parrish Titzell professor of neurology and director and chair of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. The study’s main strength is that it is nationally representative, but the data must be confirmed in a larger population, he added.

The results will clarify the effect of dementia on mortality for neurologists, and geriatricians should be made aware of them, said Dr. Iadecola. “These data should be valuable to rationalize public health efforts and related funding decisions concerning research and community support.”

Further research could determine the mortality of dementia subgroups, “especially dementias linked to vascular factors in which prevention may be effective,” said Dr. Iadecola. “In the older population, vascular factors may play a more preeminent role, and it may help focus preventive approaches.”

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Stokes received grants from Ethicon that were unrelated to this study. Dr. Iadecola serves on the scientific advisory board of Broadview Venture.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stokes AC et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2831.

Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.

“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.

NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.

“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.

The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.

Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.

For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.

However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.

Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.

“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.

“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.

ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
 

No need for NGS testing of other cancers

In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.

This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).

The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.

However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.

Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.

However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.

ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.

As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.

The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.

Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.

This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.

Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.

Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.

In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.

ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.

The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.

Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.

“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.

NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.

“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.

The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.

Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.

For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.

However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.

Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.

“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.

“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.

ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
 

No need for NGS testing of other cancers

In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.

This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).

The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.

However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.

Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.

However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.

ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.

As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.

The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.

Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.

This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.

Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.

Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.

In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.

ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.

The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.

Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.

“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.

NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.

“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.

The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.

Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.

For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.

However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.

Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.

“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.

“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.

ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
 

No need for NGS testing of other cancers

In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.

This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).

The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.

However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.

Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.

However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.

ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.

As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.

The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.

Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.

This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.

Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.

Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.

In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.

ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.

The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.

Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The improvement in survival in many cancer types that is seen with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), when compared to control therapies, is not affected by the patient’s sex, age, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), according to a new meta-analysis.

Therefore, treatment with these immunotherapies should not be withheld on the basis of these factors, the authors concluded.

Asked whether there have been such instances of withholding ICIs, lead author Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told Medscape Medical News: “We did this study solely based on scientific questions we had and not because we were seeing any bias at the moment in the use of ICIs.

“And we saw that the survival benefits were very similar across all of the categories [we analyzed], with a survival benefit of about 20% from immunotherapy across the board, which is clinically meaningful,” he added.

The study was published online August 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“The comparable survival advantage between patients of different sex, age, and ECOG PS may encourage more patients to receive ICI treatment regardless of cancer types, lines of therapy, agents of immunotherapy, and intervention therapies,” the authors commented.

Wang noted that there have been conflicting reports in the literature suggesting that male patients may benefit more from immunotherapy than female patients and that older patients may benefit more from the same treatment than younger patients.

However, there are also suggestions in the literature that women experience a stronger immune response than men and that, with aging, the immune system generally undergoes immunosenescence.

In addition, the PS of oncology patients has been implicated in how well patients respond to immunotherapy.

Wang noted that the findings of past studies have contradicted each other.
 

Findings of the Meta-Analysis

The meta-analysis included 37 randomized clinical trials that involved a total of 23,760 patients with a variety of advanced cancers. “Most of the trials were phase 3 (n = 34) and conduced for subsequent lines of therapy (n = 22),” the authors explained.

The most common cancers treated with an ICI were non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma.

Pooled overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated on the basis of sex, age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older), and an ECOG PS of 0 and 1 or higher.

Responses were stratified on the basis of cancer type, line of therapy, the ICI used, and the immunotherapy strategy used in the ICI arm.

Most of the drugs evaluated were PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The specific drugs assessed included ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.

A total of 32 trials that involved more than 20,000 patients reported HRs for death according to the patients’ sex. Thirty-four trials that involved more than 21,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ age, and 30 trials that involved more than 19,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ ECOG PS.

No significant differences in OS benefit were seen by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, or intervention strategy, the investigators pointed out.

There were also no differences in survival benefit associated with immunotherapy vs control therapies for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 and an ECOG PS of 1 or greater. The OS benefit was 0.81 for those with an ECOG PS of 0 and 0.79 for those with an ECOG PS of 1 or greater.

Wang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com .

The improvement in survival in many cancer types that is seen with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), when compared to control therapies, is not affected by the patient’s sex, age, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), according to a new meta-analysis.

Therefore, treatment with these immunotherapies should not be withheld on the basis of these factors, the authors concluded.

Asked whether there have been such instances of withholding ICIs, lead author Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told Medscape Medical News: “We did this study solely based on scientific questions we had and not because we were seeing any bias at the moment in the use of ICIs.

“And we saw that the survival benefits were very similar across all of the categories [we analyzed], with a survival benefit of about 20% from immunotherapy across the board, which is clinically meaningful,” he added.

The study was published online August 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“The comparable survival advantage between patients of different sex, age, and ECOG PS may encourage more patients to receive ICI treatment regardless of cancer types, lines of therapy, agents of immunotherapy, and intervention therapies,” the authors commented.

Wang noted that there have been conflicting reports in the literature suggesting that male patients may benefit more from immunotherapy than female patients and that older patients may benefit more from the same treatment than younger patients.

However, there are also suggestions in the literature that women experience a stronger immune response than men and that, with aging, the immune system generally undergoes immunosenescence.

In addition, the PS of oncology patients has been implicated in how well patients respond to immunotherapy.

Wang noted that the findings of past studies have contradicted each other.
 

Findings of the Meta-Analysis

The meta-analysis included 37 randomized clinical trials that involved a total of 23,760 patients with a variety of advanced cancers. “Most of the trials were phase 3 (n = 34) and conduced for subsequent lines of therapy (n = 22),” the authors explained.

The most common cancers treated with an ICI were non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma.

Pooled overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated on the basis of sex, age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older), and an ECOG PS of 0 and 1 or higher.

Responses were stratified on the basis of cancer type, line of therapy, the ICI used, and the immunotherapy strategy used in the ICI arm.

Most of the drugs evaluated were PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The specific drugs assessed included ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.

A total of 32 trials that involved more than 20,000 patients reported HRs for death according to the patients’ sex. Thirty-four trials that involved more than 21,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ age, and 30 trials that involved more than 19,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ ECOG PS.

No significant differences in OS benefit were seen by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, or intervention strategy, the investigators pointed out.

There were also no differences in survival benefit associated with immunotherapy vs control therapies for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 and an ECOG PS of 1 or greater. The OS benefit was 0.81 for those with an ECOG PS of 0 and 0.79 for those with an ECOG PS of 1 or greater.

Wang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com .

The improvement in survival in many cancer types that is seen with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), when compared to control therapies, is not affected by the patient’s sex, age, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), according to a new meta-analysis.

Therefore, treatment with these immunotherapies should not be withheld on the basis of these factors, the authors concluded.

Asked whether there have been such instances of withholding ICIs, lead author Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told Medscape Medical News: “We did this study solely based on scientific questions we had and not because we were seeing any bias at the moment in the use of ICIs.

“And we saw that the survival benefits were very similar across all of the categories [we analyzed], with a survival benefit of about 20% from immunotherapy across the board, which is clinically meaningful,” he added.

The study was published online August 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“The comparable survival advantage between patients of different sex, age, and ECOG PS may encourage more patients to receive ICI treatment regardless of cancer types, lines of therapy, agents of immunotherapy, and intervention therapies,” the authors commented.

Wang noted that there have been conflicting reports in the literature suggesting that male patients may benefit more from immunotherapy than female patients and that older patients may benefit more from the same treatment than younger patients.

However, there are also suggestions in the literature that women experience a stronger immune response than men and that, with aging, the immune system generally undergoes immunosenescence.

In addition, the PS of oncology patients has been implicated in how well patients respond to immunotherapy.

Wang noted that the findings of past studies have contradicted each other.
 

Findings of the Meta-Analysis

The meta-analysis included 37 randomized clinical trials that involved a total of 23,760 patients with a variety of advanced cancers. “Most of the trials were phase 3 (n = 34) and conduced for subsequent lines of therapy (n = 22),” the authors explained.

The most common cancers treated with an ICI were non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma.

Pooled overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated on the basis of sex, age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older), and an ECOG PS of 0 and 1 or higher.

Responses were stratified on the basis of cancer type, line of therapy, the ICI used, and the immunotherapy strategy used in the ICI arm.

Most of the drugs evaluated were PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The specific drugs assessed included ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.

A total of 32 trials that involved more than 20,000 patients reported HRs for death according to the patients’ sex. Thirty-four trials that involved more than 21,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ age, and 30 trials that involved more than 19,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ ECOG PS.

No significant differences in OS benefit were seen by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, or intervention strategy, the investigators pointed out.

There were also no differences in survival benefit associated with immunotherapy vs control therapies for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 and an ECOG PS of 1 or greater. The OS benefit was 0.81 for those with an ECOG PS of 0 and 0.79 for those with an ECOG PS of 1 or greater.

Wang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com .

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Long-term outcomes now being reported confirm earlier reports from the same trial showing efficacy for the use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) in patients with early breast cancer.

This novel approach, which delivers a one-off blast of radiation directed at the tumor bed and is given during lumpectomy, has similar efficacy and lowers non–breast cancer mortality when compared with whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), which is delivered in fractions over 3-6 weeks after surgery.

Giving the boost of radiation during surgery has numerous benefits, say the authors: it is more convenient for patients and saves on healthcare costs.

However, the controversy over local recurrence rates, sparked by the earlier results, still remains. The difference in the 5-year local recurrence rate between TARGIT and EBRT was within the 2.5% margin for non-inferiority: the rate was 2.11% in 1140 TARGIT recipients, compared with 0.95% in 1158 EBRT recipients, for a difference of 1.16% (13 recurrences).

The new longer-term results from the TARGIT-A trial were published August 20 in the BMJ, and confirm earlier results from this trial published in 2014. Meanwhile, other approaches to intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) have also been reported.  

Nevertheless, whole-breast radiotherapy remains the standard of care today, note the authors.

“The biggest battle the TARGIT investigator family has faced is our challenge to the conventional dogma that radiotherapy has to be given in multiple daily doses, and moreover that whole-breast radiotherapy is always essential,” said lead author Jayant Vaidya, MD, professor of surgery and oncology at University College London, UK. He was one of the team of investigators that together developed the TARGIT approach in the 1990s, as he recalls in a related BMJ blog post.

It is unclear whether the TARGIT-A long-term outcomes will change practice, Rachel Jimenez, MD, associate program director of the Harvard Radiation Oncology Residency Program and assistant professor of radiation oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

She noted there was controversy and debate over the earlier reports from TARGIT-A, and those findings “did little to change practice patterns over the past 6 years,” she said.

“With the publication of longer-term follow-up, my expectation would be that perceptions of IORT will remain unchanged in the radiation oncology community, and that those previously supportive of the TARGIT-A approach will continue to embrace it while those initially skeptical will be unlikely to change practice despite the longer-term results,” she said.

“However, despite the controversy surrounding TARGIT-A, it is heartening as a clinician who cares for breast cancer patients to see a trend within the early breast cancer clinical trials space toward the evaluation of increasingly targeted and abbreviated courses of radiation,” Jimenez commented.
 

Details of new long-term results

TARGIT-A is an open-label, 32-center multinational study conducted in 2298 women aged 45 years or older with early-stage invasive ductal carcinoma who were eligible for breast-conserving surgery. Between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012, participants were randomized 1:1 to risk-adapted TARGIT immediately after lumpectomy or to whole-breast EBRT delivered for the standard 3-6 week daily fractionated course.

At a median follow-up of 8.6 years — with some patients followed for nearly 19 years — no significant difference was seen between the treatment groups in local recurrence-free survival (167 vs 147 events; hazard ratio, 1.13); invasive local recurrence-free survival (154 vs 146 events; HR, 1.04); mastectomy-free survival (170 vs 175 events; HR, 0.96); distant disease-free survival (133 vs 148 events; HR, 0.88); overall survival (110 vs 131 events; HR, 0.82); or breast cancer mortality (6 vs 57 events; HR, 1.12).

“Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (45 vs 74 events; HR, 0.59),” the authors note.
 

Controversy of Earlier Results

Vaidya and colleagues comment that these new results confirm earlier findings from this trial. They were initially presented in 2012 by Vaidya at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and subsequently published in The Lancet, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News. Those earlier results showed a trend toward lower overall mortality with TARGIT (absolute difference, -1.3%; P = .01) and significantly fewer deaths from causes other than breast cancer (absolute difference, -2.1%; P = .009).

However, TARGIT was associated with slightly more same-breast recurrences at that time (3.3% vs 1.3%; P = 0.42), even though this was still within the 2.5% margin for non-inferiority.

The new longer-term results show a similar pattern.

It was this risk of same-breast recurrences that sparked the heated debate over the findings, as some breast cancer experts argued that this needs to be weighed against various potential benefits of IORT for patients: greater convenience, potentially improved mortality, and lower costs.

The extent of that “vigorous debate” was highlighted in 2015 in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, (the Red Journal), in which editor-in-chief Anthony Zietman, MD, shared numerous letters to the editor, written in response to two editorials, that contained “passionately and articulately expressed” views from “senior investigators and breast cancer physicians from around the globe.”

At the same time, in 2015, another approach to IORT was reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting and simultaneously published online in The Lancet. This was accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) delivered directly to the tumor bed using multicatheter brachytherapy at the time of lumpectomy in women with early breast cancer. The results showed outcomes that were comparable with whole-breast irradiation, but with fewer side effects.

Those findings prompted a 2016 update to the ASTRO consensus statement on APBI to note that APBI after lumpectomy may be suitable for more women with early-stage breast cancer, including younger patients and those with ductal carcinoma in situ.

In comments to Medscape Medical News, Jimenez noted that several recent studies have shown efficacy for various IORT approaches. There have been two phase 3 non-inferiority studies, namely the NSABP B-39 and the RAPID trial, that evaluate the use of APBI in lieu of whole-breast radiation. There have also been two trials as well as the evaluation of a 5-day ultrahypofractionated whole-breast radiation course per the UK Fast and Fast-Forward trials, compared with several weeks of whole-breast radiation.  

“Collectively, these studies lend support for fewer and/or more targeted radiotherapy treatments for our patients and have the potential to reduce patient burden and limit healthcare costs,” Jimenez told Medscape Medical News.

Indeed, the TARGIT-A researchers write that their long-term findings “have shown that risk-adapted single-dose TARGIT-IORT given during lumpectomy can effectively replace the mandatory use of several weeks of daily postoperative whole-breast radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer undergoing breast conservation.”

Given the numerous benefits to patients that this approach provides, the choice should ultimately rest with the patient, the authors conclude.

An extended follow-up of the trial (TARGIT-Ex) is ongoing, as is the TARGIT-B(oost) trial looking at TARGIT-IORT as a tumor bed boost with EBRT boost in younger women and those with higher-risk disease.

The TARGIT-A trial was sponsored by University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre and funded by UCLH Charities, the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors reported numerous disclosures, as detailed in the publication.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Long-term outcomes now being reported confirm earlier reports from the same trial showing efficacy for the use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) in patients with early breast cancer.

This novel approach, which delivers a one-off blast of radiation directed at the tumor bed and is given during lumpectomy, has similar efficacy and lowers non–breast cancer mortality when compared with whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), which is delivered in fractions over 3-6 weeks after surgery.

Giving the boost of radiation during surgery has numerous benefits, say the authors: it is more convenient for patients and saves on healthcare costs.

However, the controversy over local recurrence rates, sparked by the earlier results, still remains. The difference in the 5-year local recurrence rate between TARGIT and EBRT was within the 2.5% margin for non-inferiority: the rate was 2.11% in 1140 TARGIT recipients, compared with 0.95% in 1158 EBRT recipients, for a difference of 1.16% (13 recurrences).

The new longer-term results from the TARGIT-A trial were published August 20 in the BMJ, and confirm earlier results from this trial published in 2014. Meanwhile, other approaches to intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) have also been reported.  

Nevertheless, whole-breast radiotherapy remains the standard of care today, note the authors.

“The biggest battle the TARGIT investigator family has faced is our challenge to the conventional dogma that radiotherapy has to be given in multiple daily doses, and moreover that whole-breast radiotherapy is always essential,” said lead author Jayant Vaidya, MD, professor of surgery and oncology at University College London, UK. He was one of the team of investigators that together developed the TARGIT approach in the 1990s, as he recalls in a related BMJ blog post.

It is unclear whether the TARGIT-A long-term outcomes will change practice, Rachel Jimenez, MD, associate program director of the Harvard Radiation Oncology Residency Program and assistant professor of radiation oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

She noted there was controversy and debate over the earlier reports from TARGIT-A, and those findings “did little to change practice patterns over the past 6 years,” she said.

“With the publication of longer-term follow-up, my expectation would be that perceptions of IORT will remain unchanged in the radiation oncology community, and that those previously supportive of the TARGIT-A approach will continue to embrace it while those initially skeptical will be unlikely to change practice despite the longer-term results,” she said.

“However, despite the controversy surrounding TARGIT-A, it is heartening as a clinician who cares for breast cancer patients to see a trend within the early breast cancer clinical trials space toward the evaluation of increasingly targeted and abbreviated courses of radiation,” Jimenez commented.
 

Details of new long-term results

TARGIT-A is an open-label, 32-center multinational study conducted in 2298 women aged 45 years or older with early-stage invasive ductal carcinoma who were eligible for breast-conserving surgery. Between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012, participants were randomized 1:1 to risk-adapted TARGIT immediately after lumpectomy or to whole-breast EBRT delivered for the standard 3-6 week daily fractionated course.

At a median follow-up of 8.6 years — with some patients followed for nearly 19 years — no significant difference was seen between the treatment groups in local recurrence-free survival (167 vs 147 events; hazard ratio, 1.13); invasive local recurrence-free survival (154 vs 146 events; HR, 1.04); mastectomy-free survival (170 vs 175 events; HR, 0.96); distant disease-free survival (133 vs 148 events; HR, 0.88); overall survival (110 vs 131 events; HR, 0.82); or breast cancer mortality (6 vs 57 events; HR, 1.12).

“Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (45 vs 74 events; HR, 0.59),” the authors note.
 

Controversy of Earlier Results

Vaidya and colleagues comment that these new results confirm earlier findings from this trial. They were initially presented in 2012 by Vaidya at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and subsequently published in The Lancet, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News. Those earlier results showed a trend toward lower overall mortality with TARGIT (absolute difference, -1.3%; P = .01) and significantly fewer deaths from causes other than breast cancer (absolute difference, -2.1%; P = .009).

However, TARGIT was associated with slightly more same-breast recurrences at that time (3.3% vs 1.3%; P = 0.42), even though this was still within the 2.5% margin for non-inferiority.

The new longer-term results show a similar pattern.

It was this risk of same-breast recurrences that sparked the heated debate over the findings, as some breast cancer experts argued that this needs to be weighed against various potential benefits of IORT for patients: greater convenience, potentially improved mortality, and lower costs.

The extent of that “vigorous debate” was highlighted in 2015 in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, (the Red Journal), in which editor-in-chief Anthony Zietman, MD, shared numerous letters to the editor, written in response to two editorials, that contained “passionately and articulately expressed” views from “senior investigators and breast cancer physicians from around the globe.”

At the same time, in 2015, another approach to IORT was reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting and simultaneously published online in The Lancet. This was accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) delivered directly to the tumor bed using multicatheter brachytherapy at the time of lumpectomy in women with early breast cancer. The results showed outcomes that were comparable with whole-breast irradiation, but with fewer side effects.

Those findings prompted a 2016 update to the ASTRO consensus statement on APBI to note that APBI after lumpectomy may be suitable for more women with early-stage breast cancer, including younger patients and those with ductal carcinoma in situ.

In comments to Medscape Medical News, Jimenez noted that several recent studies have shown efficacy for various IORT approaches. There have been two phase 3 non-inferiority studies, namely the NSABP B-39 and the RAPID trial, that evaluate the use of APBI in lieu of whole-breast radiation. There have also been two trials as well as the evaluation of a 5-day ultrahypofractionated whole-breast radiation course per the UK Fast and Fast-Forward trials, compared with several weeks of whole-breast radiation.  

“Collectively, these studies lend support for fewer and/or more targeted radiotherapy treatments for our patients and have the potential to reduce patient burden and limit healthcare costs,” Jimenez told Medscape Medical News.

Indeed, the TARGIT-A researchers write that their long-term findings “have shown that risk-adapted single-dose TARGIT-IORT given during lumpectomy can effectively replace the mandatory use of several weeks of daily postoperative whole-breast radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer undergoing breast conservation.”

Given the numerous benefits to patients that this approach provides, the choice should ultimately rest with the patient, the authors conclude.

An extended follow-up of the trial (TARGIT-Ex) is ongoing, as is the TARGIT-B(oost) trial looking at TARGIT-IORT as a tumor bed boost with EBRT boost in younger women and those with higher-risk disease.

The TARGIT-A trial was sponsored by University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre and funded by UCLH Charities, the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors reported numerous disclosures, as detailed in the publication.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Long-term outcomes now being reported confirm earlier reports from the same trial showing efficacy for the use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) in patients with early breast cancer.

This novel approach, which delivers a one-off blast of radiation directed at the tumor bed and is given during lumpectomy, has similar efficacy and lowers non–breast cancer mortality when compared with whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), which is delivered in fractions over 3-6 weeks after surgery.

Giving the boost of radiation during surgery has numerous benefits, say the authors: it is more convenient for patients and saves on healthcare costs.

However, the controversy over local recurrence rates, sparked by the earlier results, still remains. The difference in the 5-year local recurrence rate between TARGIT and EBRT was within the 2.5% margin for non-inferiority: the rate was 2.11% in 1140 TARGIT recipients, compared with 0.95% in 1158 EBRT recipients, for a difference of 1.16% (13 recurrences).

The new longer-term results from the TARGIT-A trial were published August 20 in the BMJ, and confirm earlier results from this trial published in 2014. Meanwhile, other approaches to intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) have also been reported.  

Nevertheless, whole-breast radiotherapy remains the standard of care today, note the authors.

“The biggest battle the TARGIT investigator family has faced is our challenge to the conventional dogma that radiotherapy has to be given in multiple daily doses, and moreover that whole-breast radiotherapy is always essential,” said lead author Jayant Vaidya, MD, professor of surgery and oncology at University College London, UK. He was one of the team of investigators that together developed the TARGIT approach in the 1990s, as he recalls in a related BMJ blog post.

It is unclear whether the TARGIT-A long-term outcomes will change practice, Rachel Jimenez, MD, associate program director of the Harvard Radiation Oncology Residency Program and assistant professor of radiation oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

She noted there was controversy and debate over the earlier reports from TARGIT-A, and those findings “did little to change practice patterns over the past 6 years,” she said.

“With the publication of longer-term follow-up, my expectation would be that perceptions of IORT will remain unchanged in the radiation oncology community, and that those previously supportive of the TARGIT-A approach will continue to embrace it while those initially skeptical will be unlikely to change practice despite the longer-term results,” she said.

“However, despite the controversy surrounding TARGIT-A, it is heartening as a clinician who cares for breast cancer patients to see a trend within the early breast cancer clinical trials space toward the evaluation of increasingly targeted and abbreviated courses of radiation,” Jimenez commented.
 

Details of new long-term results

TARGIT-A is an open-label, 32-center multinational study conducted in 2298 women aged 45 years or older with early-stage invasive ductal carcinoma who were eligible for breast-conserving surgery. Between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012, participants were randomized 1:1 to risk-adapted TARGIT immediately after lumpectomy or to whole-breast EBRT delivered for the standard 3-6 week daily fractionated course.

At a median follow-up of 8.6 years — with some patients followed for nearly 19 years — no significant difference was seen between the treatment groups in local recurrence-free survival (167 vs 147 events; hazard ratio, 1.13); invasive local recurrence-free survival (154 vs 146 events; HR, 1.04); mastectomy-free survival (170 vs 175 events; HR, 0.96); distant disease-free survival (133 vs 148 events; HR, 0.88); overall survival (110 vs 131 events; HR, 0.82); or breast cancer mortality (6 vs 57 events; HR, 1.12).

“Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (45 vs 74 events; HR, 0.59),” the authors note.
 

Controversy of Earlier Results

Vaidya and colleagues comment that these new results confirm earlier findings from this trial. They were initially presented in 2012 by Vaidya at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and subsequently published in The Lancet, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News. Those earlier results showed a trend toward lower overall mortality with TARGIT (absolute difference, -1.3%; P = .01) and significantly fewer deaths from causes other than breast cancer (absolute difference, -2.1%; P = .009).

However, TARGIT was associated with slightly more same-breast recurrences at that time (3.3% vs 1.3%; P = 0.42), even though this was still within the 2.5% margin for non-inferiority.

The new longer-term results show a similar pattern.

It was this risk of same-breast recurrences that sparked the heated debate over the findings, as some breast cancer experts argued that this needs to be weighed against various potential benefits of IORT for patients: greater convenience, potentially improved mortality, and lower costs.

The extent of that “vigorous debate” was highlighted in 2015 in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, (the Red Journal), in which editor-in-chief Anthony Zietman, MD, shared numerous letters to the editor, written in response to two editorials, that contained “passionately and articulately expressed” views from “senior investigators and breast cancer physicians from around the globe.”

At the same time, in 2015, another approach to IORT was reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting and simultaneously published online in The Lancet. This was accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) delivered directly to the tumor bed using multicatheter brachytherapy at the time of lumpectomy in women with early breast cancer. The results showed outcomes that were comparable with whole-breast irradiation, but with fewer side effects.

Those findings prompted a 2016 update to the ASTRO consensus statement on APBI to note that APBI after lumpectomy may be suitable for more women with early-stage breast cancer, including younger patients and those with ductal carcinoma in situ.

In comments to Medscape Medical News, Jimenez noted that several recent studies have shown efficacy for various IORT approaches. There have been two phase 3 non-inferiority studies, namely the NSABP B-39 and the RAPID trial, that evaluate the use of APBI in lieu of whole-breast radiation. There have also been two trials as well as the evaluation of a 5-day ultrahypofractionated whole-breast radiation course per the UK Fast and Fast-Forward trials, compared with several weeks of whole-breast radiation.  

“Collectively, these studies lend support for fewer and/or more targeted radiotherapy treatments for our patients and have the potential to reduce patient burden and limit healthcare costs,” Jimenez told Medscape Medical News.

Indeed, the TARGIT-A researchers write that their long-term findings “have shown that risk-adapted single-dose TARGIT-IORT given during lumpectomy can effectively replace the mandatory use of several weeks of daily postoperative whole-breast radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer undergoing breast conservation.”

Given the numerous benefits to patients that this approach provides, the choice should ultimately rest with the patient, the authors conclude.

An extended follow-up of the trial (TARGIT-Ex) is ongoing, as is the TARGIT-B(oost) trial looking at TARGIT-IORT as a tumor bed boost with EBRT boost in younger women and those with higher-risk disease.

The TARGIT-A trial was sponsored by University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre and funded by UCLH Charities, the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors reported numerous disclosures, as detailed in the publication.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Alzheimer’s disease may have a causal effect on sleep patterns, but disturbed sleep does not appear to cause Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

The causal association between disturbed sleep and Alzheimer’s disease that has been observed in previous studies may have resulted from reverse causation, the researchers noted. The current Mendelian randomization analysis also failed to find a causal relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. Future studies should examine the genetic heterogeneity of depression syndromes to test for causal relationships between subtypes of depression with distinct causes and Alzheimer’s disease.

Mendelian randomization compares individuals who have different genetic profiles for a given exposure. “Given that genetic variants are inherited at random, these two groups are comparable, and any differences are not likely to be due to other associated factors,” such as confounding bias, said corresponding author Abbas Dehghan, PhD, reader in cardiometabolic disease epidemiology at Imperial College London. “Moreover, given that genetic information is constant over the lifetime, the chances for reverse causation are small.”

The findings were published online August 19 in Neurology.

Causal questions

Many patients with late-life neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease have comorbid depression, but whether these two disorders have a causal relationship or common risk factors has been unclear, the investigators noted. Abnormal sleep patterns are symptoms of both depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Abnormal sleep is also associated with cognitive decline and anxiety.

The researchers hypothesized that sleep causally affects major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease but that there is no causal relationship between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. They conducted a bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization study to test these hypotheses.

The investigators conducted genomewide association studies (GWASs) using data from the prospective, population-based U.K. Biobank. Sleep phenotypes were measured by self-report or accelerometer. Genetic associations were derived from 403,195 patients for chronotype, 237,627 patients for insomnia, 446,118 people for sleep duration, and 85,670 people for accelerometer-derived phenotypes.

Two binary variables from sleep duration were derived: short sleep (duration of less than 7 hours) and long sleep (duration of 9 or more hours). A sleep episode was defined as a period of at least 5 minutes with a change on the dorsal-ventral axis of less than 5 degrees. The durations of all sleep episodes were added to calculate total sleep duration.

Major depressive disorder was diagnosed clinically in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. Genetic associations were derived from 9,240 case patients and 9,519 control participants. Alzheimer’s disease was diagnosed on the basis of physician examination or autopsy results. Genetic associations were obtained from a meta-analysis of GWAS on participants of European ancestry in the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, which included 21,982 case patients and 41,944 control participants.

More risk factor research needed

Results showed no causal relationships between sleep-related phenotypes and major depressive disorder in either direction. Causal relationships between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease were found in both directions, but neither was statistically significant.

A genetically higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease was associated with being a “morning person,” being at decreased risk for insomnia, having shorter sleep duration on self-report and accelerometer, having decreased likelihood of reporting long sleep, having an earlier timing of the least active 5 hours, and having a smaller number of sleep episodes. However, no analysis supported a causal effect of sleep-related phenotypes on risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

Because APOE4 can influence disease processes that may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease risk, the investigators also conducted a sensitivity analysis that excluded APOE single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In this analysis, the causal associations of Alzheimer’s disease with self-reported and accelerometer-based sleep duration were not significant. The sensitivity analysis did support the other causal associations between Alzheimer’s disease and sleep phenotypes, however.

The causal associations between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease observed in other studies may have been the result of confounding, and the participants may have had other associated characteristics that put them at risk for the disease, said Dr. Dehghan. Furthermore, the previous studies considered various sleep phenotypes together, whereas in the current study, the investigators examined them separately.

The results suggest that preclinical and clinical Alzheimer’s disease may affect sleep phenotypes differently. Sleep management thus could be an important approach to improving quality of life for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers wrote.

“Our study indicates that depression and sleep disorders are not likely to be a causal factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Dehghan said. “We need to search for other risk factors for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Several strengths, lacks details

Walter A. Kukull, PhD, professor of epidemiology and director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the investigators appear to have implemented their chosen methods of causal association analysis well. “They attempted to examine the direction of the causal arrow for risk factors … and that is a step usually not well examined in other studies.”

He added that the collection of objective measures, such as of sleep, is another strength of the study.

However, “the common weakness of the basic GWAS sample is that clinical symptomatology determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Thus, asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic persons with Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brains were likely included among normal controls,” said Dr. Kukull, who was not involved with the research.

Because of an apparent lack of biomarker data, patients who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease may in fact have had a different form of dementia. Given the nature of their data, the investigators could have done little to compensate for these possibilities, Dr. Kukull added. In addition, the article lacks details that would improve the interpretation of the results.

“Timing is everything with regard to potential associations between risk factor and outcome,” Dr. Kukull said. “With the exceptions of genes, it would be nice to know more about the timing of risk factors’ onset and Alzheimer’s disease onset.”

Still, the results indicate potential areas of future study, he noted. “Primarily, further research must address the question of pathological onset of disease and misclassification of diagnosis in both cases and controls due to lack of biomarker-confirmed diagnosis. Then research can also struggle with the timing of potential risk factors with respect to disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Dehghan and Dr. Kukull reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alzheimer’s disease may have a causal effect on sleep patterns, but disturbed sleep does not appear to cause Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

The causal association between disturbed sleep and Alzheimer’s disease that has been observed in previous studies may have resulted from reverse causation, the researchers noted. The current Mendelian randomization analysis also failed to find a causal relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. Future studies should examine the genetic heterogeneity of depression syndromes to test for causal relationships between subtypes of depression with distinct causes and Alzheimer’s disease.

Mendelian randomization compares individuals who have different genetic profiles for a given exposure. “Given that genetic variants are inherited at random, these two groups are comparable, and any differences are not likely to be due to other associated factors,” such as confounding bias, said corresponding author Abbas Dehghan, PhD, reader in cardiometabolic disease epidemiology at Imperial College London. “Moreover, given that genetic information is constant over the lifetime, the chances for reverse causation are small.”

The findings were published online August 19 in Neurology.

Causal questions

Many patients with late-life neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease have comorbid depression, but whether these two disorders have a causal relationship or common risk factors has been unclear, the investigators noted. Abnormal sleep patterns are symptoms of both depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Abnormal sleep is also associated with cognitive decline and anxiety.

The researchers hypothesized that sleep causally affects major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease but that there is no causal relationship between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. They conducted a bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization study to test these hypotheses.

The investigators conducted genomewide association studies (GWASs) using data from the prospective, population-based U.K. Biobank. Sleep phenotypes were measured by self-report or accelerometer. Genetic associations were derived from 403,195 patients for chronotype, 237,627 patients for insomnia, 446,118 people for sleep duration, and 85,670 people for accelerometer-derived phenotypes.

Two binary variables from sleep duration were derived: short sleep (duration of less than 7 hours) and long sleep (duration of 9 or more hours). A sleep episode was defined as a period of at least 5 minutes with a change on the dorsal-ventral axis of less than 5 degrees. The durations of all sleep episodes were added to calculate total sleep duration.

Major depressive disorder was diagnosed clinically in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. Genetic associations were derived from 9,240 case patients and 9,519 control participants. Alzheimer’s disease was diagnosed on the basis of physician examination or autopsy results. Genetic associations were obtained from a meta-analysis of GWAS on participants of European ancestry in the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, which included 21,982 case patients and 41,944 control participants.

More risk factor research needed

Results showed no causal relationships between sleep-related phenotypes and major depressive disorder in either direction. Causal relationships between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease were found in both directions, but neither was statistically significant.

A genetically higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease was associated with being a “morning person,” being at decreased risk for insomnia, having shorter sleep duration on self-report and accelerometer, having decreased likelihood of reporting long sleep, having an earlier timing of the least active 5 hours, and having a smaller number of sleep episodes. However, no analysis supported a causal effect of sleep-related phenotypes on risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

Because APOE4 can influence disease processes that may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease risk, the investigators also conducted a sensitivity analysis that excluded APOE single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In this analysis, the causal associations of Alzheimer’s disease with self-reported and accelerometer-based sleep duration were not significant. The sensitivity analysis did support the other causal associations between Alzheimer’s disease and sleep phenotypes, however.

The causal associations between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease observed in other studies may have been the result of confounding, and the participants may have had other associated characteristics that put them at risk for the disease, said Dr. Dehghan. Furthermore, the previous studies considered various sleep phenotypes together, whereas in the current study, the investigators examined them separately.

The results suggest that preclinical and clinical Alzheimer’s disease may affect sleep phenotypes differently. Sleep management thus could be an important approach to improving quality of life for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers wrote.

“Our study indicates that depression and sleep disorders are not likely to be a causal factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Dehghan said. “We need to search for other risk factors for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Several strengths, lacks details

Walter A. Kukull, PhD, professor of epidemiology and director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the investigators appear to have implemented their chosen methods of causal association analysis well. “They attempted to examine the direction of the causal arrow for risk factors … and that is a step usually not well examined in other studies.”

He added that the collection of objective measures, such as of sleep, is another strength of the study.

However, “the common weakness of the basic GWAS sample is that clinical symptomatology determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Thus, asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic persons with Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brains were likely included among normal controls,” said Dr. Kukull, who was not involved with the research.

Because of an apparent lack of biomarker data, patients who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease may in fact have had a different form of dementia. Given the nature of their data, the investigators could have done little to compensate for these possibilities, Dr. Kukull added. In addition, the article lacks details that would improve the interpretation of the results.

“Timing is everything with regard to potential associations between risk factor and outcome,” Dr. Kukull said. “With the exceptions of genes, it would be nice to know more about the timing of risk factors’ onset and Alzheimer’s disease onset.”

Still, the results indicate potential areas of future study, he noted. “Primarily, further research must address the question of pathological onset of disease and misclassification of diagnosis in both cases and controls due to lack of biomarker-confirmed diagnosis. Then research can also struggle with the timing of potential risk factors with respect to disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Dehghan and Dr. Kukull reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alzheimer’s disease may have a causal effect on sleep patterns, but disturbed sleep does not appear to cause Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

The causal association between disturbed sleep and Alzheimer’s disease that has been observed in previous studies may have resulted from reverse causation, the researchers noted. The current Mendelian randomization analysis also failed to find a causal relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. Future studies should examine the genetic heterogeneity of depression syndromes to test for causal relationships between subtypes of depression with distinct causes and Alzheimer’s disease.

Mendelian randomization compares individuals who have different genetic profiles for a given exposure. “Given that genetic variants are inherited at random, these two groups are comparable, and any differences are not likely to be due to other associated factors,” such as confounding bias, said corresponding author Abbas Dehghan, PhD, reader in cardiometabolic disease epidemiology at Imperial College London. “Moreover, given that genetic information is constant over the lifetime, the chances for reverse causation are small.”

The findings were published online August 19 in Neurology.

Causal questions

Many patients with late-life neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease have comorbid depression, but whether these two disorders have a causal relationship or common risk factors has been unclear, the investigators noted. Abnormal sleep patterns are symptoms of both depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Abnormal sleep is also associated with cognitive decline and anxiety.

The researchers hypothesized that sleep causally affects major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease but that there is no causal relationship between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. They conducted a bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization study to test these hypotheses.

The investigators conducted genomewide association studies (GWASs) using data from the prospective, population-based U.K. Biobank. Sleep phenotypes were measured by self-report or accelerometer. Genetic associations were derived from 403,195 patients for chronotype, 237,627 patients for insomnia, 446,118 people for sleep duration, and 85,670 people for accelerometer-derived phenotypes.

Two binary variables from sleep duration were derived: short sleep (duration of less than 7 hours) and long sleep (duration of 9 or more hours). A sleep episode was defined as a period of at least 5 minutes with a change on the dorsal-ventral axis of less than 5 degrees. The durations of all sleep episodes were added to calculate total sleep duration.

Major depressive disorder was diagnosed clinically in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. Genetic associations were derived from 9,240 case patients and 9,519 control participants. Alzheimer’s disease was diagnosed on the basis of physician examination or autopsy results. Genetic associations were obtained from a meta-analysis of GWAS on participants of European ancestry in the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, which included 21,982 case patients and 41,944 control participants.

More risk factor research needed

Results showed no causal relationships between sleep-related phenotypes and major depressive disorder in either direction. Causal relationships between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease were found in both directions, but neither was statistically significant.

A genetically higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease was associated with being a “morning person,” being at decreased risk for insomnia, having shorter sleep duration on self-report and accelerometer, having decreased likelihood of reporting long sleep, having an earlier timing of the least active 5 hours, and having a smaller number of sleep episodes. However, no analysis supported a causal effect of sleep-related phenotypes on risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

Because APOE4 can influence disease processes that may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease risk, the investigators also conducted a sensitivity analysis that excluded APOE single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In this analysis, the causal associations of Alzheimer’s disease with self-reported and accelerometer-based sleep duration were not significant. The sensitivity analysis did support the other causal associations between Alzheimer’s disease and sleep phenotypes, however.

The causal associations between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease observed in other studies may have been the result of confounding, and the participants may have had other associated characteristics that put them at risk for the disease, said Dr. Dehghan. Furthermore, the previous studies considered various sleep phenotypes together, whereas in the current study, the investigators examined them separately.

The results suggest that preclinical and clinical Alzheimer’s disease may affect sleep phenotypes differently. Sleep management thus could be an important approach to improving quality of life for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers wrote.

“Our study indicates that depression and sleep disorders are not likely to be a causal factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Dehghan said. “We need to search for other risk factors for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Several strengths, lacks details

Walter A. Kukull, PhD, professor of epidemiology and director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the investigators appear to have implemented their chosen methods of causal association analysis well. “They attempted to examine the direction of the causal arrow for risk factors … and that is a step usually not well examined in other studies.”

He added that the collection of objective measures, such as of sleep, is another strength of the study.

However, “the common weakness of the basic GWAS sample is that clinical symptomatology determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Thus, asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic persons with Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brains were likely included among normal controls,” said Dr. Kukull, who was not involved with the research.

Because of an apparent lack of biomarker data, patients who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease may in fact have had a different form of dementia. Given the nature of their data, the investigators could have done little to compensate for these possibilities, Dr. Kukull added. In addition, the article lacks details that would improve the interpretation of the results.

“Timing is everything with regard to potential associations between risk factor and outcome,” Dr. Kukull said. “With the exceptions of genes, it would be nice to know more about the timing of risk factors’ onset and Alzheimer’s disease onset.”

Still, the results indicate potential areas of future study, he noted. “Primarily, further research must address the question of pathological onset of disease and misclassification of diagnosis in both cases and controls due to lack of biomarker-confirmed diagnosis. Then research can also struggle with the timing of potential risk factors with respect to disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Dehghan and Dr. Kukull reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In late June, Lisa Richardson, MD, emerged from Atlanta, Georgia’s initial COVID-19 lockdown, and “got back out there” for some overdue doctor’s appointments, including a mammogram.

The mammogram was a particular priority for her, since she is director of the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. But she knows that cancer screening is going to be a much tougher sell for the average person going forward in the pandemic era.

“It really is a challenge trying to get people to feel comfortable coming back in to be screened,” she said. Richardson was speaking recently at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer, a virtual symposium on cancer prevention and early detection in the COVID-19 pandemic organized by the American Association for Cancer Research.

While health service shutdowns and stay-at-home orders forced the country’s initial precipitous decline in cancer screening, fear of contracting COVID-19 is a big part of what is preventing patients from returning.

“We’ve known even pre-pandemic that people were hesitant to do cancer screening and in some ways this has really given them an out to say, ‘Well, I’m going to hold off on that colonoscopy,’ ” Amy Leader, MD, from Thomas Jefferson University’s Kimmel Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said during the symposium.
 

Estimating the pandemic’s impact on cancer care

While the impact of the pandemic on cancer can only be estimated at the moment, the prospects are already daunting, said Richardson, speculating that the hard-won 26% drop in cancer mortality over the past two decades “may be put on hold or reversed” by COVID-19.

There could be as many as 10,000 excess deaths in the US from colorectal and breast cancer alone because of COVID-19 delays, predicted Norman E. Sharpless, director of the US National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

But even Sharpless acknowledges that his modeling gives a conservative estimate, “as it does not consider other cancer types, it does not account for the additional nonlethal morbidity from upstaging, and it assumes a moderate disruption in care that completely resolves after 6 months.”

With still no end to the pandemic in sight, the true scope of cancer screening and treatment disruptions will take a long time to assess, but several studies presented during the symposium revealed some early indications.

A national survey launched in mid-May, which involved 534 women either diagnosed with breast cancer or undergoing screening or diagnostic evaluation for it, found that delays in screening were reported by 31.7% of those with breast cancer, and 26.7% of those without. Additionally, 21% of those on active treatment for breast cancer reported treatment delays.

“It’s going to be really important to implement strategies to help patients return to care ... creating a culture and a feeling of safety among patients and communicating through the uncertainty that exists in the pandemic,” said study investigator Erica T. Warner, ScD MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Screening for prostate cancer (via prostate-specific antigen testing) also declined, though not as dramatically as that for breast cancer, noted Mara Epstein, ScD, from The Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester. Her study at a large healthcare provider group compared rates of both screening and diagnostic mammographies, and also PSA testing, as well as breast and prostate biopsies in the first five months of 2020 vs the same months in 2019.

While a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen in all procedures over the entire study period, the greatest decline was seen in April for screening mammography (down 98%), and tomosynthesis (down 96%), as well as PSA testing (down 83%), she said.

More recent figures are hard to come by, but a recent weekly survey from the Primary Care Collaborative shows 46% of practices are offering preventive and chronic care management visits, but patients are not scheduling them, and 44% report that in-person visit volume is between 30%-50% below normal over the last 4 weeks. 
 

Will COVID-19 exacerbate racial disparities in cancer?

Neither of the studies presented at the symposium analyzed cancer care disruptions by race, but there was concern among some panelists that cancer care disparities that existed before the pandemic will be magnified further.

“Over the next several months and into the next year there’s going to be some catch-up in screening and treatment, and one of my concerns is minority and underserved populations will not partake in that catch-up the way many middle-class Americans will,” said Otis Brawley, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

There is ample evidence that minority populations have been disproportionately hit by COVID-19, job losses, and lost health insurance, said the CDC’s Richardson, and all these factors could widen the cancer gap.

“It’s not a race thing, it’s a ‘what do you do thing,’ and an access to care thing, and what your socioeconomic status is,” Richardson said in an interview. “People who didn’t have sick leave before the pandemic still don’t have sick leave; if they didn’t have time to get their mammogram they still don’t have time.”

But she acknowledges that evidence is still lacking. Could some minority populations actually be less fearful of medical encounters because their work has already prevented them from sheltering in place? “It could go either way,” she said. “They might be less wary of venturing out into the clinic, but they also might reason that they’ve exposed themselves enough already at work and don’t want any additional exposure.”

In that regard, Richardson suggests population-specific messaging will be an important way of communicating with under-served populations to restart screening.

“We’re struggling at CDC with how to develop messages that resonate within different communities, because we’re missing the point of actually speaking to people within their culture and within the places that they live,” she said. “Just saying the same thing and putting a black face on it is not going to make a difference; you actually have to speak the language of the people you’re trying to reach — the same message in different packages.”

To that end, even before the pandemic, the CDC supported the development of Make It Your Own, a website that uses “evidence-based strategies” to assist healthcare organizations in customizing health information “by race, ethnicity, age, gender and location”, and target messages  to “specific populations, cultural groups and languages”.

But Mass General’s Warner says she’s not sure she would argue for messages to be tailored by race, “at least not without evidence that values and priorities regarding returning to care differ between racial/ethnic groups.”

“Tailoring in the absence of data requires assumptions that may or may not be correct and ignores within-group heterogeneity,” Warner told Medscape Medical News. “However, I do believe that messaging about return to cancer screening and care should be multifaceted and use diverse imagery. This recognizes that some messages will resonate more or less with individuals based on their own characteristics, of which race may be one.”

Warner does believe in the power of tailored messaging though. “Part of the onus for healthcare institutions and providers is to make some decisions about who it is really important to bring back in soonest,” she said.

“Those are the ones we want to prioritize, as opposed to those who we want to get back into care but we don’t need to get them in right now,” Warner emphasized. “As they are balancing all the needs of their family and their community and their other needs, messaging that adds additional stress, worry, anxiety and shame is not what we want to do. So really we need to distinguish between these populations, identify the priorities, hit the hard message to people who really need it now, and encourage others to come back in as they can.”
 

Building trust

All the panelists agreed that building trust with the public will be key to getting cancer care back on track.  

“I don’t think anyone trusts the healthcare community right now, but we already had this baseline distrust of healthcare among many minority communities, and now with COVID-19, the African American community in particular is seeing people go into the hospital and never come back,” said Richardson.

For Warner, the onus really falls on healthcare institutions. “We have to be proactive and not leave the burden of deciding when and how to return to care up to patients,” she said.

“What we need to focus on as much as possible is to get people to realize it is safe to come see the doctor,” said Johns Hopkins oncologist Brawley. “We have to make it safe for them to come see us, and then we have to convince them it is safe to come see us.”

Venturing out to her mammography appointment in early June, Richardson said she felt safe. “Everything was just the way it was supposed to be, everyone was masked, everyone was washing their hands,” she said.

Yet, by mid-June she had contracted COVID-19. “I don’t know where I got it,” she said. “No matter how careful you are, understand that if you’re in a total red spot, as I am, you can just get it.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In late June, Lisa Richardson, MD, emerged from Atlanta, Georgia’s initial COVID-19 lockdown, and “got back out there” for some overdue doctor’s appointments, including a mammogram.

The mammogram was a particular priority for her, since she is director of the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. But she knows that cancer screening is going to be a much tougher sell for the average person going forward in the pandemic era.

“It really is a challenge trying to get people to feel comfortable coming back in to be screened,” she said. Richardson was speaking recently at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer, a virtual symposium on cancer prevention and early detection in the COVID-19 pandemic organized by the American Association for Cancer Research.

While health service shutdowns and stay-at-home orders forced the country’s initial precipitous decline in cancer screening, fear of contracting COVID-19 is a big part of what is preventing patients from returning.

“We’ve known even pre-pandemic that people were hesitant to do cancer screening and in some ways this has really given them an out to say, ‘Well, I’m going to hold off on that colonoscopy,’ ” Amy Leader, MD, from Thomas Jefferson University’s Kimmel Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said during the symposium.
 

Estimating the pandemic’s impact on cancer care

While the impact of the pandemic on cancer can only be estimated at the moment, the prospects are already daunting, said Richardson, speculating that the hard-won 26% drop in cancer mortality over the past two decades “may be put on hold or reversed” by COVID-19.

There could be as many as 10,000 excess deaths in the US from colorectal and breast cancer alone because of COVID-19 delays, predicted Norman E. Sharpless, director of the US National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

But even Sharpless acknowledges that his modeling gives a conservative estimate, “as it does not consider other cancer types, it does not account for the additional nonlethal morbidity from upstaging, and it assumes a moderate disruption in care that completely resolves after 6 months.”

With still no end to the pandemic in sight, the true scope of cancer screening and treatment disruptions will take a long time to assess, but several studies presented during the symposium revealed some early indications.

A national survey launched in mid-May, which involved 534 women either diagnosed with breast cancer or undergoing screening or diagnostic evaluation for it, found that delays in screening were reported by 31.7% of those with breast cancer, and 26.7% of those without. Additionally, 21% of those on active treatment for breast cancer reported treatment delays.

“It’s going to be really important to implement strategies to help patients return to care ... creating a culture and a feeling of safety among patients and communicating through the uncertainty that exists in the pandemic,” said study investigator Erica T. Warner, ScD MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Screening for prostate cancer (via prostate-specific antigen testing) also declined, though not as dramatically as that for breast cancer, noted Mara Epstein, ScD, from The Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester. Her study at a large healthcare provider group compared rates of both screening and diagnostic mammographies, and also PSA testing, as well as breast and prostate biopsies in the first five months of 2020 vs the same months in 2019.

While a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen in all procedures over the entire study period, the greatest decline was seen in April for screening mammography (down 98%), and tomosynthesis (down 96%), as well as PSA testing (down 83%), she said.

More recent figures are hard to come by, but a recent weekly survey from the Primary Care Collaborative shows 46% of practices are offering preventive and chronic care management visits, but patients are not scheduling them, and 44% report that in-person visit volume is between 30%-50% below normal over the last 4 weeks. 
 

Will COVID-19 exacerbate racial disparities in cancer?

Neither of the studies presented at the symposium analyzed cancer care disruptions by race, but there was concern among some panelists that cancer care disparities that existed before the pandemic will be magnified further.

“Over the next several months and into the next year there’s going to be some catch-up in screening and treatment, and one of my concerns is minority and underserved populations will not partake in that catch-up the way many middle-class Americans will,” said Otis Brawley, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

There is ample evidence that minority populations have been disproportionately hit by COVID-19, job losses, and lost health insurance, said the CDC’s Richardson, and all these factors could widen the cancer gap.

“It’s not a race thing, it’s a ‘what do you do thing,’ and an access to care thing, and what your socioeconomic status is,” Richardson said in an interview. “People who didn’t have sick leave before the pandemic still don’t have sick leave; if they didn’t have time to get their mammogram they still don’t have time.”

But she acknowledges that evidence is still lacking. Could some minority populations actually be less fearful of medical encounters because their work has already prevented them from sheltering in place? “It could go either way,” she said. “They might be less wary of venturing out into the clinic, but they also might reason that they’ve exposed themselves enough already at work and don’t want any additional exposure.”

In that regard, Richardson suggests population-specific messaging will be an important way of communicating with under-served populations to restart screening.

“We’re struggling at CDC with how to develop messages that resonate within different communities, because we’re missing the point of actually speaking to people within their culture and within the places that they live,” she said. “Just saying the same thing and putting a black face on it is not going to make a difference; you actually have to speak the language of the people you’re trying to reach — the same message in different packages.”

To that end, even before the pandemic, the CDC supported the development of Make It Your Own, a website that uses “evidence-based strategies” to assist healthcare organizations in customizing health information “by race, ethnicity, age, gender and location”, and target messages  to “specific populations, cultural groups and languages”.

But Mass General’s Warner says she’s not sure she would argue for messages to be tailored by race, “at least not without evidence that values and priorities regarding returning to care differ between racial/ethnic groups.”

“Tailoring in the absence of data requires assumptions that may or may not be correct and ignores within-group heterogeneity,” Warner told Medscape Medical News. “However, I do believe that messaging about return to cancer screening and care should be multifaceted and use diverse imagery. This recognizes that some messages will resonate more or less with individuals based on their own characteristics, of which race may be one.”

Warner does believe in the power of tailored messaging though. “Part of the onus for healthcare institutions and providers is to make some decisions about who it is really important to bring back in soonest,” she said.

“Those are the ones we want to prioritize, as opposed to those who we want to get back into care but we don’t need to get them in right now,” Warner emphasized. “As they are balancing all the needs of their family and their community and their other needs, messaging that adds additional stress, worry, anxiety and shame is not what we want to do. So really we need to distinguish between these populations, identify the priorities, hit the hard message to people who really need it now, and encourage others to come back in as they can.”
 

Building trust

All the panelists agreed that building trust with the public will be key to getting cancer care back on track.  

“I don’t think anyone trusts the healthcare community right now, but we already had this baseline distrust of healthcare among many minority communities, and now with COVID-19, the African American community in particular is seeing people go into the hospital and never come back,” said Richardson.

For Warner, the onus really falls on healthcare institutions. “We have to be proactive and not leave the burden of deciding when and how to return to care up to patients,” she said.

“What we need to focus on as much as possible is to get people to realize it is safe to come see the doctor,” said Johns Hopkins oncologist Brawley. “We have to make it safe for them to come see us, and then we have to convince them it is safe to come see us.”

Venturing out to her mammography appointment in early June, Richardson said she felt safe. “Everything was just the way it was supposed to be, everyone was masked, everyone was washing their hands,” she said.

Yet, by mid-June she had contracted COVID-19. “I don’t know where I got it,” she said. “No matter how careful you are, understand that if you’re in a total red spot, as I am, you can just get it.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In late June, Lisa Richardson, MD, emerged from Atlanta, Georgia’s initial COVID-19 lockdown, and “got back out there” for some overdue doctor’s appointments, including a mammogram.

The mammogram was a particular priority for her, since she is director of the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. But she knows that cancer screening is going to be a much tougher sell for the average person going forward in the pandemic era.

“It really is a challenge trying to get people to feel comfortable coming back in to be screened,” she said. Richardson was speaking recently at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer, a virtual symposium on cancer prevention and early detection in the COVID-19 pandemic organized by the American Association for Cancer Research.

While health service shutdowns and stay-at-home orders forced the country’s initial precipitous decline in cancer screening, fear of contracting COVID-19 is a big part of what is preventing patients from returning.

“We’ve known even pre-pandemic that people were hesitant to do cancer screening and in some ways this has really given them an out to say, ‘Well, I’m going to hold off on that colonoscopy,’ ” Amy Leader, MD, from Thomas Jefferson University’s Kimmel Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said during the symposium.
 

Estimating the pandemic’s impact on cancer care

While the impact of the pandemic on cancer can only be estimated at the moment, the prospects are already daunting, said Richardson, speculating that the hard-won 26% drop in cancer mortality over the past two decades “may be put on hold or reversed” by COVID-19.

There could be as many as 10,000 excess deaths in the US from colorectal and breast cancer alone because of COVID-19 delays, predicted Norman E. Sharpless, director of the US National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

But even Sharpless acknowledges that his modeling gives a conservative estimate, “as it does not consider other cancer types, it does not account for the additional nonlethal morbidity from upstaging, and it assumes a moderate disruption in care that completely resolves after 6 months.”

With still no end to the pandemic in sight, the true scope of cancer screening and treatment disruptions will take a long time to assess, but several studies presented during the symposium revealed some early indications.

A national survey launched in mid-May, which involved 534 women either diagnosed with breast cancer or undergoing screening or diagnostic evaluation for it, found that delays in screening were reported by 31.7% of those with breast cancer, and 26.7% of those without. Additionally, 21% of those on active treatment for breast cancer reported treatment delays.

“It’s going to be really important to implement strategies to help patients return to care ... creating a culture and a feeling of safety among patients and communicating through the uncertainty that exists in the pandemic,” said study investigator Erica T. Warner, ScD MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Screening for prostate cancer (via prostate-specific antigen testing) also declined, though not as dramatically as that for breast cancer, noted Mara Epstein, ScD, from The Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester. Her study at a large healthcare provider group compared rates of both screening and diagnostic mammographies, and also PSA testing, as well as breast and prostate biopsies in the first five months of 2020 vs the same months in 2019.

While a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen in all procedures over the entire study period, the greatest decline was seen in April for screening mammography (down 98%), and tomosynthesis (down 96%), as well as PSA testing (down 83%), she said.

More recent figures are hard to come by, but a recent weekly survey from the Primary Care Collaborative shows 46% of practices are offering preventive and chronic care management visits, but patients are not scheduling them, and 44% report that in-person visit volume is between 30%-50% below normal over the last 4 weeks. 
 

Will COVID-19 exacerbate racial disparities in cancer?

Neither of the studies presented at the symposium analyzed cancer care disruptions by race, but there was concern among some panelists that cancer care disparities that existed before the pandemic will be magnified further.

“Over the next several months and into the next year there’s going to be some catch-up in screening and treatment, and one of my concerns is minority and underserved populations will not partake in that catch-up the way many middle-class Americans will,” said Otis Brawley, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

There is ample evidence that minority populations have been disproportionately hit by COVID-19, job losses, and lost health insurance, said the CDC’s Richardson, and all these factors could widen the cancer gap.

“It’s not a race thing, it’s a ‘what do you do thing,’ and an access to care thing, and what your socioeconomic status is,” Richardson said in an interview. “People who didn’t have sick leave before the pandemic still don’t have sick leave; if they didn’t have time to get their mammogram they still don’t have time.”

But she acknowledges that evidence is still lacking. Could some minority populations actually be less fearful of medical encounters because their work has already prevented them from sheltering in place? “It could go either way,” she said. “They might be less wary of venturing out into the clinic, but they also might reason that they’ve exposed themselves enough already at work and don’t want any additional exposure.”

In that regard, Richardson suggests population-specific messaging will be an important way of communicating with under-served populations to restart screening.

“We’re struggling at CDC with how to develop messages that resonate within different communities, because we’re missing the point of actually speaking to people within their culture and within the places that they live,” she said. “Just saying the same thing and putting a black face on it is not going to make a difference; you actually have to speak the language of the people you’re trying to reach — the same message in different packages.”

To that end, even before the pandemic, the CDC supported the development of Make It Your Own, a website that uses “evidence-based strategies” to assist healthcare organizations in customizing health information “by race, ethnicity, age, gender and location”, and target messages  to “specific populations, cultural groups and languages”.

But Mass General’s Warner says she’s not sure she would argue for messages to be tailored by race, “at least not without evidence that values and priorities regarding returning to care differ between racial/ethnic groups.”

“Tailoring in the absence of data requires assumptions that may or may not be correct and ignores within-group heterogeneity,” Warner told Medscape Medical News. “However, I do believe that messaging about return to cancer screening and care should be multifaceted and use diverse imagery. This recognizes that some messages will resonate more or less with individuals based on their own characteristics, of which race may be one.”

Warner does believe in the power of tailored messaging though. “Part of the onus for healthcare institutions and providers is to make some decisions about who it is really important to bring back in soonest,” she said.

“Those are the ones we want to prioritize, as opposed to those who we want to get back into care but we don’t need to get them in right now,” Warner emphasized. “As they are balancing all the needs of their family and their community and their other needs, messaging that adds additional stress, worry, anxiety and shame is not what we want to do. So really we need to distinguish between these populations, identify the priorities, hit the hard message to people who really need it now, and encourage others to come back in as they can.”
 

Building trust

All the panelists agreed that building trust with the public will be key to getting cancer care back on track.  

“I don’t think anyone trusts the healthcare community right now, but we already had this baseline distrust of healthcare among many minority communities, and now with COVID-19, the African American community in particular is seeing people go into the hospital and never come back,” said Richardson.

For Warner, the onus really falls on healthcare institutions. “We have to be proactive and not leave the burden of deciding when and how to return to care up to patients,” she said.

“What we need to focus on as much as possible is to get people to realize it is safe to come see the doctor,” said Johns Hopkins oncologist Brawley. “We have to make it safe for them to come see us, and then we have to convince them it is safe to come see us.”

Venturing out to her mammography appointment in early June, Richardson said she felt safe. “Everything was just the way it was supposed to be, everyone was masked, everyone was washing their hands,” she said.

Yet, by mid-June she had contracted COVID-19. “I don’t know where I got it,” she said. “No matter how careful you are, understand that if you’re in a total red spot, as I am, you can just get it.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.